The Early Reading Wars have essentially gone underground in many Canadian provinces and school districts. Since the appearance of Keith Stanovich’s acclaimed 2000 book, Progress in Understanding Reading, teaching reading by developing ” phonological awareness” and utilizing effective, synthetic phonics has been gaining significant ground among leading literacy researchers and education policy-makers. The term “Whole Language” was now been banished from the vocabulary of most faculty of education Language Arts instructors and curriculum consultants. Yet, more recently, just when it appeared that the Whole Language movement was in full retreat, the warmed-over strategy– retooled as the “balanced approach” —has reared its head, once again, in two provinces, British Columbia and Nova Scotia.
Two respected Canadian literacy researchers, Linda Siegel of the University of British Columbia and Jamie Metsala of Mount Saint Vincent University, have risen to the latest challenge. Both scholars are highly respected Special Education authorities, specializing in addressing student learning disabilities. Given the mounting evidence in support of effective, systematic instruction in phonological awareness and synthetic phonics, they are also troubled by why so many children still struggle in the area of reading.
The latest research report written by Jamie Metsala for the Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (2012-07-25) provides an uncharacteristically blunt assessment.
“Unfortunately, in some school districts and provinces, the reading wars are still alive and well. In documents outlining provincial strategies for providing interventions to young children at risk for reading difficulties, explicit and direct instruction may not be mentioned or supported (e.g., B.C. Ministry of Education, 2010; N.S. Department of Education, 2011), and in practice may be strongly discouraged. This impedes teachers learning about, receiving professional development ion, and having access to research-based intervention programs and strategies.” (pp. 5-6)
Most reading difficulties can, and should, be prevented using research-proven effective classroom instruction and early intervention. Recent research has only buttressed claims that systematic, synthetic phonics strategies produce far better results for more students than the “balanced approach” back-stopped by the short-term Grade 1 intervention known as Reading Recovery.
So you can only imagine Dr. Siegel’s shock, back in June 2010, when the B.C. Department of Education posted, without warning, a draft policy document, Primary Program: A Guide for Teaching 2010, endorsing the “balanced approach” to literacy totally at odds with the research on best practice. She responded with a scorching letter to Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid, and, since then, has been campaigning to correct the damage to special needs kids and especially those diagnosed with dyslexia.
The next jolt came from Nova Scotia. In 2010, Education Minister Ramona Jennex raised hopes by cancelling the $7 million province-wide Grade 1 Reading Recovery program and announcing that it would be replaced by a more affordable, comprehensive “home-grown” program covering Grades 1 to 3. Provincial advocates for effective, research-based literacy methods and interventions were skeptical in April 2011 when the Department unveiled the policy framework for Succeeding in Reading.
The Succeeding in Reading policy framework (April 26, 2011) confirmed the fears of Metsala, Halifax Region private tutoring providers, and many Special Education teachers. While Nova Scotia had abandoned Reading Recovery, the “balanced approach” found a new lease on life. The mandated Approach, as stated in the document, was to provide: “focused, developmentally appropriate instruction”; and “immersion in rich oral and text language and literacy experiences.” The only real changes were to identify struggling readers earlier, in Primary Class, to spread literacy instruction over three years, and to provide support in groups of up to 3 students.
A March 6, 2012 session on Succeeding in Reading held at Mount Saint Vincent University, featuring N.S. Provincial Curriculum Consultant Janet Porter, left many in stunned silence. It went over like a lead balloon. Most of the questioners poked holes in the generalized, fuzzy program description and a Frontier College official and two Halifax psychologists, seeing no reference whatsoever to “phonics,” demanded to know why it was missing from the document. Assurances that it was one of a number of possible approaches failed to mollify them or really satisfy anyone in the audience.
The initial results for the first cohort of Grade 1 students in 2011-12 did little to inspire confidence in Nova Scotia’s new program. Of the 806 Grade 1 students in the Halifax Regional School Board participating in the assessment, 44 per cent failed to meet the expected standard for achievement. Of those lagging students, 70 per cent were boys. The board’s French Immersion students did only marginally better, with 39% failing to make the standard, 61% of whom were boys. Under the new program, two out of five students entered grade 2 already struggling with reading deficits in the Atlantic region’s largest school system.
Those abysmal results not only made front page news in The Chronicle Herald (22 January 2013), but confirmed Dr. Jamie Metsala’s research findings. “Word recognition is the leading obstacle for young children learning to read and for disabled readers, “she reported, and “phonemic awareness deficits are one of the most frequent causes of these difficulties.” The root cause, Metsala pointed out, citing a 2008 JLD study, was “instruction that is either insufficient in its design or intensity for students at risk for reading disabilities.”
Why have the 2010 B.C. Ministry of Education and the 2011 N.S. Department of Education literacy programs been identified as fundamentally flawed in their approach? How have Ministry of Education consultants managed to implement “balanced” WL-based programs in defiance of the proven scientific research? When will research-based best practice be enshrined in policy documents, begin to reach classroom teachers and actually come to the rescue of children struggling with learning to read?
My business is in this sweet spot. It’s actually not so sweet I assure you (for the simple reason) that there is a vitriolic refusal to do the right thing and honour research.
I know Linda Siegel at UBC and we`ve had these discussions. I’ve also heard that Dr. Keith Stanovich (in spite of his repeated research findings) got shunned at OISE repeatedly when he recommended teachers learn how to teach Reading during their preparation-that certainly did not mean whole language and zero direct instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. Strangely enough, they were on the first floor,his lab was on the 3rd.
Over at OISE the situation is grim. At this point we all know is this-DR. Ben Levin hasn`t sanctioned a change in approach ,and Michael Fullan hasn`t either. Needless to say, that doesn`t help. (The OISE crowd) prefer to say that it`s low SES that causes reading failure — and that song is being and has been sung all over the country.
As former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education Bernie Shapiro observed, school boards don`t, as a rule, honour research, rather they virtually ignore it..
How could they ignore that mountain of evidence? I will never understand,but they still do! I also see that the publishers sell the balanced literacy and whole language stuff so that`s what they buy!
I was stunned when Nova Scotia consultant Janet Porter went the way of balanced literacy after the appalling failure of Reading Recovery. My only explanation for the decision was that she has probably never taught a child who failed to learns to read and spell. These decisions can only be based on lack of knowledge. If you know how these children struggle,their fears,their shame,their pain,you`d pick more wisely!
Everyone should be watching http://www.childrenofthecode.org. Perhaps it will be parents who create evening fundraisers with these DVD`s and start pressuring boards to do the right thing.
For all of us who care,sigh………
I think Jo-Anne has summed it all up perfectly. We sigh along with you Jo-Anne but the struggle is worth it for a generation of children!
You are quite correct to identify Dr. Keith Stanovich of the University of Toronto as a critical force in shaping the growing “scientific consensus” about what works in teaching early reading. The “Matthew Effect” was new to me until I heard Dr. Stanovich’s explanation:
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/stanovich.htm
It continues to amaze me how wrong-headed learning theories can continue to be promulgated in defiance of the proven, validated research:.
Been doing some number crunching on the Nova Scotia Succeeding in Reading program. Using the numbers available in the 2 reports, based on 12 week sessions, assuming 3 12 week sessions – approximately 36 % of students have their reading difficulties successfully remediated. What of the remainder 64 %?
Well that depends on what one calls success, but it is highlighted that students do improved. Yes they do, but if that is called improvement, a private reading tutor would be going out of business.
So what of the 64 % out of 1006 grade 1 students? It comes down to the design of the reading support program, and in this case it is a clone of Reading Recovery, right down to the identifying of students. The exception is in Reading Recovery, its the bottom 20 percent of students, but in Succeeding in Reading it is increased by 10 percent, to the bottom 30 percent of students. The secondary difference is each grade one classroom/school have certain percentage allocated based on a combination of student and school SES variables, and the Reading Recovery assessments use before and after.
On average, the target for each grade 1 classroom/school is the bottom 25 to 36 % of students, to be scooped up, in each 12 week session. At the end of the first 12 week session, the students who have met the benchmarks, achieving reading grade levels moved out to be replaced by a new set of students that have been identified based on the allocation of the bottom 30 percent. Students who successfully move out at the end of the 12 week session, for the most part is based on the BURTS Reading Assessment. Lots of nasty talk about the BURTS test on the LD forums, and no it is not one of the recommended reading assessments by the reading science nor the top experts in remediation. The BURTS test been around since the 1970s in the public education system, to indicate reading level of the student. It is how many of a student is denied reading support, based solely on this assessment. One issue in the design, are the assessments used.
That said, the assessments that are selected are not on what is best for the students, but rather the selection of assessments is based on the assigned allocation of each school to control funding costs, number of staff, and essentially capping the number of students identified as needing extra reading support. With Reading Recovery, it was 20 percent for each classroom, but the Succeeding in Reading, has its allocation spread across from 10 to 70 % for each school. The outliers in the ranges of 10,,50,60,and 70 are schools that are the high-needs and low-needs schools. The outlier schools being the minority (of 26/111 schools), and the vast majority of the 111 schools are in the 20, 30 and 40 range (of 85/111 schools). A 23 – 77 ratio and I bet the ratio of 25 – 75 are the pre-determined allocation with final allocations set at the beginning of the new school year. It pleases administrators and budget officers that can predict the expenditures in advance and pretty well guarantee a steady progression of students making the reading grade in and around 30 percent or so in each 12 week session. And at the year end, produced a positive report glossing over the negative aspects. No wonder it went over like a lead balloon.
Click to access pdf%5Creports%5C2012-2013%5CJanuary%5C13-01-1385.pdf
I could not find the funding allocation for the Nova Scotia reading support program. But whatever it is, its a wasteful expenditure of money because it is not based on the science of reading.
In 2007 – “The Science of Reading Instruction and No Child Left Behind
This bulletin is adapted from a transcript of a Manhattan Institute forum held in New York City on May 22, 2007.”
“Panel Discussion: Reading First and Reading science
G. Reid Lyon, Former Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health
Diane Ravitch, Education Historian; Research Professor, New York University; and author of The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (Alfred Knopf, 2003) among other books
Rick Nelson, Former President, Fairfax County Federation of Teachers, Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia
Maria Casby Allen, Parent Activist, Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia
Moderator: Sol Stern, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Luncheon Address
The Honorable Margaret Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cb_49.htm
Even Ravitch agrees – based on the science and on what works supported by the evidence. Although the above is in 2007, I am quite sure I can dig up the yearly American reading discussions with the panel being compose of the researcher heavy weights, with an educator and a parent. However in Canada, what will never happen in selecting the Canadian reading researchers as the panel, and a parent other than the Annie Kidder clone, sprouting every SES variable as the reason, including ability to keep whole language alive. In the above report, the parent on the panel – ” The home, the parents, and poverty all took the blame. But as a frequent school volunteer, I observed that the blame lay elsewhere. The children were simply not being taught.” Have another parent on a panel, whose children are having difficulties – the never been taught to poor instruction methods will come up.
One of the major problems in Canada, is the refusal of the education stakeholders to look within, at the instruction methods, the curriculum, and what is not being taught. Coupled with the lack of instructional methods based on the science and the evidence, it is why the low literacy and numeracy levels of the adult population are increasing, as the number of adults with high literacy and numeracy levels are decreasing. because each year a fresh batch of grade 12 graduates are adding and keeping the adult population with low literacy and numeracy skills a steady slow snail climb to the 50 % mark.
” Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction”
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/
“The Today Foundation is committed to the goal of reading proficiency for all our children regardless of their economic background. The Foundation is a champion of unique and effective technologies proven to help children learn to read thus expanding their opportunities to participate in the American Dream.
Education Reform Series ~ April 2009 White Paper
The Agony of Reading Failure” by Dr. G. Reid Lyon
Click to access Today_Foundation_White_Paper_2009.pdf
And on Dr. Reid Lyon web site – http://www.reidlyon.com/publications.html
Of course Children of the Code web site – where all the top reading researchers and scientists gather across the globe. Hey parents, if one contacted one of the top researchers, they will take the time to respond. Unlike the public education researchers, and the last one I contacted whined to me, why are you contacting me. He was a bit upset, that one of the bottom feeders manage to get hold of him to question his research.
To which, the education researchers within the Canadian public education system don’t like to have their work question, nor defend their work on the basis of the scientific evidence that states the opposite. It becomes even more convoluted when dealing with the administration implementing the working theories of the public education researchers. At this junction, they will scream out costs. It will cost too much to implement reading instruction based on the science, as the education heavy weights did in the Supreme Court of Canada hearing of the Moore case. It went over like a leaded balloon, because it cast a light on the school board’s reading instruction methods. In the Agony of Reading Failure, Lyon cites what are the problems, and highlights the one – a shortage of well-trained teachers.
On the Children of the Code front page – ” While we are grateful for all who have contributed to the emerging science of reading and to increasing social awareness of the importance of literacy, the Children of the Code project approaches the social-educational challenge differently. First of all, we don’t blame anyone. The blame game and the ‘reading wars’ have retarded our progress. For over a hundred years we’ve argued over ‘progressive vs. conservative’ ideologies; ‘phonics vs. whole (x)’ methodologies, and ‘spelling vs. alphabet’ code reform. Effectively marginalized by such simplifications, tens of thousands of research studies, hundreds of products, and decades of national and state government legislation have barely moved the needle. New methodologies are embraced by those who share their implicit ideologies and superficially rejected by those who don’t. Part of the reason for this is that the proponents of literacy and particular systems of instruction tend to come with ‘baggage’. Partisan politics, ideologies, methodologies, institutional funding needs, profit motives, and marketing hyperbole all contribute to obscuring the issues. They also tend to advocate “solutions” to a problem that, for the most part, educators and parents don’t sufficiently understand. Thus, despite decades of literacy campaigns and advances in the science of reading, there is little evidence of any significant improvement. The lives of tens of millions of children and adults are still being seriously-adversely affected by reading improficiency and its insidious collateral consequences.”
“Our literacy problems are the legacy effects of generations of ignorance, negligence and superficial thinking. More than all the other issues combined it is our collective misunderstanding of ‘the code’ and what is at stake and what is involved in ‘learning to read it’ that perpetuates our reading crisis and, by extension, our education crisis. We have to stop seeing struggling readers only through the lens of theoretical and statistical models created by adult readers who no longer have a 1st-person experience of the struggle of learning to read. We need to completely reframe our thinking about reading.”
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/
There you have it, the answers to Paul’s questions. And in part, another bit of funding being wasted in Nova Scotia, on the second clone of Reading Recovery now named Succeeding In Reading. If that isn’t politics of extending the reading crisis in Nova Scotia, or at the very least repeating the dismal outcomes of students just to keep the education stakeholders happy and protected from the scientific truth on reading instruction. I don’t know what is!
Funny eh, those darn Canadians are according to PISA, the worlds best readers of the English language. Go figure. How is it possible?
Are you trying to be a flamer, again, Doug? Well, I’m not going to bite,this time…
Back to the topic – the return of the Underground War on Phonics.
The Vancouver Sun Education Reporter, Janet Steffenhagen, read the Commentary on Educhatter and sent along this update:
“Linda Siegel…. was not invited to join the expert panel assembled to help BC’s new reading czar, Maureen Dockendorf, with her work in schools around the province. Dockendorf told me she had an abundance of experts, including three from UBC, and couldn’t include everyone.”
Get off the fence, Doug, and engage in this discussion. Surely we should be more concerned with teaching reading than re-fighting the Whole Language War, again.
Actually Paul it is one of those issues i care very little about although I do support limited phonics. It seems to me I learned to read using a combination of phonics and the “se say” methods of Dick and Jane. See spot run, run spot run. I also recall my grade one class posting all of the phonics possibilities around the classroom. Th says th as in this and that
The debate is only interesting at the margins. Since Coleman and long before we have known that both reading and educational success in general are decided 80% by SES and 20% by what happens inside schools.
Even Tim Hudaks White Paper on education confines our education problems in Ontario to persistently poor results in 300 schools. There are over 1200 elementary schools in Ontario and the 300 schools identified by the EQAO are universally poor schools.
There is no difference between the teachers, their skills or their pedagogy across these 1200 school but only the poor onrs have weak results.
It is way past time for “reformers” to face up to reality and admit that the only real difference of any significance between successful and unsuccessful students is their address.
The rest is window dressing.
This is actually the same scenario as Nova Scotia -home made programs with educators assigned from the province they`ve worked in.
Yes,they didn`t ask a researcher like Linda Siegel,that would require deferring to empirical research on Reading,they prefer to create their own.
No one would mind if the instruction began with phonemic awareness training,phonics and built bottom up vocabulary and sentences and readings were decodable till they flew like birds .It`s strange how zealous they are thinking that willing it on the strugglers will do the trick-not even reflecting on the fact that 10 percent of every classroom is dyslexic…pity the children!
Thinking about it more,Linda Siegel`s just caught in the Reading War.
Nothing is as ferocious as Academia,perhaps it`s the root cause of this war!
This morning, my 17 year old comes downstairs light and airy, after eating soft-boil eggs and toast in anticipation of the calculus mid-term exam. She related to me how she uses folded paper, folded in different ways when she learns in class or in studying. She relates she can’t learn calculus without folding the paper to the 1/2 mark. Then she asked me a question, how did she acquired the habit of folding paper, and who taught me?
I had to chuckled, because it was I that modeled the technique and taught her the folding paper techniques, as part and parcel of re-teaching and tutoring at home. One would be amazed the science behind it, and is just one of many effective strategies for helping out dyslexics and other students who are struggling in learning. For my child, simply folding the 8 by 11 lined sheet in half transformed the work that had yet to be done into manageable chunks, that it did not seem so overwhelming in her mind. A full blank sheet of paper was overwhelming in her dyslexic mind, just like it was overwhelming to read 2 pages of text.
Where did I learn it? Certainly not in the public education literature, nor off the progressive teachers’ web sites but in the files of learning disabilities, dyslexia, and on the research in the cognitive, learning and neuro-science fields. How such simple techniques, simple things can transformed learning for a child, and yet how how educators are unaware of the techniques based on the science research. The folding paper techniques is not on the menu at the public education system, just like other excellent methods and practices based on the reading research, by the researchers such as Linda Siegal.
After the conversation with my child this morning on folding paper, I opened up my Google mail, showing Sopris Learning monthly newsletter. Would it not be something to see, if educators, including the researchers in the public education ivory towers were getting their knowledge from the wise educators and researchers? http://www.soprislearning.com/cs/Satellite/home?cmsid=Sopris
A short video on the front page where Louisa Moats (part of the Children of the Code researchers) is describing LETRS for teachers.
“LETRS
Author: Dr. Louisa C. Moats, Ed.D. Deborah Glaser, Ed.D. Carol Tolman, Ed. D Nancy Hennessy, M.Ed. Susan L. Hall, Ed.D. Marcia Davidson, Ph.D. Carrie Hancock, Ph.D. María Elena Argüelles, Ph.D. Scott K. Baker, Ph.D. Lucy Hart Paulson, Ed.D., CCC-SLP Antonio Fierro, Ed.D. J. Ron Nelson, Ph.D.
Grades: All”
“Prepares Educators to Undertake the Challenging Work of Teaching Literacy
LETRS® (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) professional development responds to the need for high-quality literacy educators. Developed by literacy expert Louisa C. Moats, Ed.D. LETRS provides the deep foundational knowledge necessary to understand how students learn to read, write, and spell—and why some of them struggle.
Is based in real-world experience and the science of reading
Prepares educators to diagnose why some students fail to learn to read, spell, or write
Provides strategies and activities that can be implemented immediately
Increases effectiveness of any core or supplemental program”
http://www.soprislearning.com/cs/Satellite/LETRS_Overview?cmsid=Sopris
As Joanne had stated in an earlier post – “How could they ignore that mountain of evidence? I will never understand,but they still do! I also see that the publishers sell the balanced literacy and whole language stuff so that`s what they buy!” And if the public education doesn’t buy it, its the home made stuff created by teachers. And then the educators had the gall to sneer or mock parents when they bring in the science, the literature based on the science of learning. Yesterday, I was on the P4E site because of their newsletters sent to my e-box. In the newsletter, Tips for Parents that has been recently redesigned. LOL – Annie Kidder certainly doesn’t want informed parents, let alone parents who have the necessary knowledge based on the science, in reading, writing and numeracy. One won’t find Children of the Code or Sopris Learning on any of their links. Just direct links to the public education system and whatever flavour of the month and fad is being promoted. Folded paper techniques won’t be on it, nor the triangle or square technique, but lots on why children should only learned their multiplication tables to 5, why practice of the drill kind is bad for your child and when the child is obviously failing – go directly to SE services, but follow the protocols, starting with the teacher. Twelve months later a parent is finally getting their foot in the access doors of SE, only to be pulled out because their child is now doing very well. What is never mentioned to the parent, the child is doing very well because all work has been dumb-downed to two grade levels.
To which brings me back to the Sopris Learning newsletter. On their blog page, children with behavioural challenges. ” This awareness, developed in the home, is used by students to direct teachers away from instruction. The sequence of teacher instruction followed by student disruptive behavior results in teachers lowering their overall curriculum demands and limiting the amount of instruction they provide to students with challenging behavior. The end result is an overemphasis by teachers on behavior management versus instruction.
If teachers are to improve academic outcomes for students with challenging behavior, they must resist lowering their curricular demands and limiting the amount of instruction they provide to students. Teachers will find that students with challenging behavior respond best to explicit teaching, making it easier to maintain curricular demands and instruction. Students with challenging behavior exhibit more task engagement and less disruptive behavior when teachers use explicit teaching methods.”
http://soprislearning.wordpress.com/
Hey how about that, explicit teaching……another thing that seems to be bad for children in the progressive public school. Dr. Ron Nelson bio – http://cehs.unl.edu/barkley/faculty/rnelson.shtml
Another educator in the Sopris Leaning newsletter is one that will never be mentioned in the hollow halls of the public education ivory towers, much less be considered to be hired to trained teachers on literacy using LETRS and DIBELS. The latter being a series of one minute assessments made for teachers. If one read the literature in the Canadian Public education system, DIBELS is bad for various reasons. The hatred that the public education stakeholders has towards the science in learning, holds no bounds. It is isn’t really hatred, but the public education stakeholders will always expelled the easy based on science in favour of the hard based on ideologies. I once had a conversation, of a 5 minute rant with a teacher, why would anyone want to do the hard, when the easy based on the science, my child will learn. Pedagogically correct based on 19th century knowledge, makes my dyslexic child dumb. Based on 21st century knowledge, makes my dyslexic child smart.
Even a book has been written on the evils of DIBELS. by Kenneth Goodman.
” Kenneth Goodman is Professor Emeritus, Language Reading and Culture, at the University of Arizona.[1] He is best known for developing the theory underlying the literacy philosophy of whole language.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Goodman
“DIBELS is the worst thing to happen to the teaching of reading since the development of flash cards.
—P. David Pearson
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is wildly popular up and down the local and state education hierarchies. It’s easy, quick, and an approved Reading First assessment tool. So what’s not to like?
Everything.
In The Truth About DIBELS you’ll find out why teachers, administrators, and reading researchers nationwide are emphatically resisting the insidious influence of DIBELS. Well-known education writers—including P. David Pearson, Robert Tierney, Sandra Wilde, and Maryann Manning—tell you how DIBELS hurts students and teachers and why impairs learning and teaching. ”
http://www.pearsoncanadaschool.com/index.cfm?FILTER_7=&FILTER_425=&LOCATOR=PS1zR4&PMDBSUBCATEGORYID=26108&FILTER_281=&FILTER_423=25869&PMDBSUBSOLUTIONID=&PMDBCATEGORYID=25878&PMDBSITEID=2621&FILTER_421=&FILTER_424=&PMDBPROGRAMID=47086&FILTER_161=&PMDBSOLUTIONID=25862&programFilterTypeList=161%2C421%2C423%2C424%2C281%2C425%2C7
Must be one of the bibles that is faithfully open up every day, to ensure that public education system will followed the tenets of anit-science and anti-intellectualism. One must keep up the appearance of 19th century learning, and ensure all LD and dyslexic children will always remain at the bottom of the achievement charts. In his latest book, Scientific Realism in Studies of Reading, one doesn’t have to wonder why Whole Language is reemerging bubbling up to the surface in 2013. http://www.psypress.com/books/details/9780805849905/
Goodman must truly believe in intelligence being fixed at the moment of birth. For coming up with half-baked theories on reading based on ideologies and a lot of personal naval gazing to counteract the mountains of evidence based on the science of learning and education of the youth, kicking and hammering all the doors of the public education system that only believes in ‘isms’ of ideologies.
Now back to an educator within, breaking down the doors is a woman who I came across in the earlier years. Her name is “Judi Dodson, M.A., is a national LETRS trainer, who works with teachers and administrators of primary, intermediate, and secondary students. She served for 20 years as a special education teacher, primarily with children with reading problems, and as an educational consultant performing diagnostic assessment of learning disabilities. Judi is currently working on writing activities that can help classroom teachers develop and enhance their students’ oral language skills.
Judi consults with schools, state departments of education, and school districts on issues related to school change, teacher knowledge, and literacy achievement. She speaks at conferences and gives workshops on topics related to reading intervention and activities that support increasing student achievement. Judi believes that working to empower teachers with knowledge about literacy can make a real difference in their work and help them change and enrich the lives of the children they teach.”
http://www.soprislearning.com/cs/Satellite/author/Dodson_Judith?cmsid=Sopris
“In this episode of AuthorTalk, 50 Nifty Reading Activities and 50 Nifty Speaking and Listening Activities author Judy Dodson talks about the difference between reality and theory in reading instruction and her passion behind the application level. She also gives us insight into realizing the importance and need for oral language confidence and enhanced comprehension skills. Download the full interview at: http://www.authortalkpodcast.com”
Full i-pod interview of Judy Dodson – https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/authortalk-powered-by-sopris/id457550911/
On the Sopris site – under Literacy – https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/authortalk-powered-by-sopris/id457550911/
Without the ‘isms’ of ideology, from which Doug lives and breathes. ‘Isms’ of ideology makes the public education system and its stakeholders grow rich using taxpayers dollars, at the expense of children and their futures. My youngest child is one of the many victims of the public education system, who uses the ‘ism’ of professionalism producing theories declaring the hard to teach children are indeed hard to teach. The ‘ism’ of teaching professionalism extends to 60 percent of the students they serve. Hard to teach comes in many different shapes and sizes, and the small army of researchers needed to ensure continuity among the rank and file educators that they keep on thinking and believe that 60 percent of students are hard to teach in any circumstances. It is why paper folding techniques are not to be found in the instructional methods. It is based on the science and one can’t have making learning easier for the hard to teach students. Can’t have students developing higher skills in reading, writing and numeracy. It would mean less future profits for the public education stakeholders and less air time for their extensive naval gazing of ‘isms’ in education.
A new dyslexia film coming out in the summer of 2013. The start-up of a new campaign to test for dyslexia in the primary grades.
Whole language and its clones are part of the problems. Toss in lack of knowledge and training of educators, In the public education system, the educators insists that dyslexia cannot be tested in the early primary grades.
Not true. In the real science it can be tested as early as 4 years old, and within another two years, be tested at the age of 2. At this very moment, children with a major speech delay diagnosed at the age of 2, without any other disorders such as autism, the science research have concluded that there is a 97 % likelihood of learning problems once formal schooling commences.
“Embracing Dyslexia, a documentary film currently in production, takes a hard look at dyslexia in the classroom and the role administrators, teachers, and parents play in ensuring that dyslexic students are given the tools they need to be successful in school and in life.
Directed by Luis Macias, father to a dyslexic child, the film will feature parents who share emotional stories of their anxiety and frustration over failing to understand why their children were struggling with reading, writing, and spelling and the life-altering impact the word dyslexia had on their lives. Dyslexic children and adults courageously open up and speak honestly about their dyslexia, sharing the failures and successes they have had inside and outside of school. Experts and educators will define dyslexia, illustrate why it is absolutely vital that schools screen these struggling learners for dyslexia as early as possible, and reveal how support at home, accommodations in the classroom, and effective instruction can take a child from feeling stupid, dumb, or broken to believing in themselves and knowing they can be successful.
For being the most common learning disability, dyslexia is grossly misunderstood in the one environment where it can least afford to be—our schools. Embracing Dyslexia sets out to change this by enlightening and inspiring those who are responsible for the education of these precious children.”
http://www.embracingdyslexia.com/?p=Synopsis
Whole language instruction, makes dyslexia symptoms all the worse. Progressive education theories condemns the dyslexic child in a lifetime of low levels of literacy and numeracy.
As a non-educator who just happend on this blog, I’m irritated about the use of phrases such as “testing dyslexia” and “dyslexia cannot be tested”. I’m obviously not up on educator-jargon, but surely it is a child who would be tested FOR dyslexia, rather that dyslexia itself being tested. As an example of what I believe is the correct usage, see “Testing for Dyslexia” from the National Center for Learning Disabilities, at http://www.ncld.org/parents-child-disabilities/ld-testing/testing-for-dyslexia.
There will always be those with challenging children who like to blame the school system for all of their chilrens shortcomings even though almost all of their classmates were successful. Same teachers, same curricuum, same pedagogy.
I guess it makes a handy scapegoat. It is a lot easier than looking inwards at their own family.
You know something Doug, interesting conversations and discussions taking place in the political files on how the government and its agencies – there arrogant attitudes, the father knows best, the condescending attitudes where the public is never consulted. Decisions are made by the government, without proper consultation and debate. Citizens find out after the fact, the rules have change. The government and its institutes/agencies will always respond by blaming the citizens for not knowing. Ridiculing them, if not mocking them and always in situations where the government holds the monopoly. Ergo the political power to hold sway dictating their edicts upon the citizens.
That said, Doug’s last post is a common response to protect the monopoly, and ergo their political power. The science of reading is a big threat. It makes whole language and its clones and the insistence of the public education stakeholders to retain it by dressing it up with the fancy language of the 21st century, as backwards and stubborn as a mule who refuses to move, even though the train is coming down the track.
In Stewarding Healthy Learning – part of the Children of the Code
“Learning has a dark side, it can be profoundly unhealthy physically, emotionally, socially, linguistically, cognitively, intellectually, academically. Most of our unhealthy behaviors are learned (see: Unhealthy Learning). Children can learn in ways that misorient or disable their learning (see: Maladaptive Cognitive Schema). Children can learn in ways that cause them to avoid learning (see: Mind-Shame).”
It goes on – “Today we are faced with an unprecedented challenge. In any long view, everything depends on how well we meet it. Today’s young children will become adults in a world profoundly unlike any world any human being has ever lived in. They are growing up in a world in which the rate of change, the complexity of change, and the implications of change are far beyond our ability to reliably predict (see: The Challenge of Change). What should children learn in order to be prepared for life and work in a future we can no longer envision? How do we prepare children for a future in which how well they learn – in ways and about things we didn’t teach them in school – will determine their success? Obviously there is much we must teach them, but just as obviously, there is nothing more important to their futures than how well they can learn when they get there.”
And yet the public education stakeholders are content to allow 60 % of the student population year in and year out, to have low reading, writing and numeracy skills, because they refused to honour and respect the science and research in learning, the cognitive and neuroscience fields. The emerging theories based on the research, such as mind-shame, the toxic learning environments of classrooms, and the convergence of old and new theories, to understand the underlying reasons why it is vital for the raising of the reading levels to high levels and only high levels. “The reason reading proficiency has such a powerful correlation with school outcomes (and most social pathologies) is just not the absence of the ability to read, it’s the collateral damage of prolonged difficulty with learning to read – the MIND-SHAME. Children who experience prolonged difficulty with learning to read become ashamed of their minds. As they do their emotional intelligence misorients their learning – instead of learning to read they are learning to avoid the shame they feel for reading so poorly. This becomes a downward spiral. Most post 4th graders who struggle with learning to read are struggling with their own (unconscious) emotional reaction (shame) and it undermines their cognitive-linguistic ability to learn to read.
Reading is a code instructed and informed simulated language experience. Learning to read involves artificial confusion. We are still in the stone age of understanding learning to read and our ignorance of the ‘code’ and the ‘challenges involved in learning to read it’ is the reason (not the kids) for the relationship between reading scores and drop out rates.”
http://www.learningstewards.org/re-the-link-between-reading-level-and-dropout-rates/
Its not a cultural thing. Nor is it a motivation thing. Nor is it the blame of external SES variables. Its all about eliminating the toxicity that disables learning in the public education system based on the 19th century knowledge.
Over at the economic pages – ” The incoming freshman class is woefully unprepared for college. The class of 2016, as a group, failed all four subjects the test assesses: English, math, reading, and science.”
Public High Schools Are Not Doing Their Job
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/28/public-high-schools-are-not-doing-their-jobs
Of course it doesn’t help, when 40 to 60 percent of the students, are entering high school with low literacy and numeracy skills.
There are the web files, growing leaps and bounds speaking about the anti-science beliefs among our politicians, the civil service and in places like the education system, that should be welcoming in the researchers and their findings with open arms but the K to 12 education system would rather hang out with the anti-science believers that believe the 19th century knowledge is the only thing that is needed to trained the 21st century educators.
Never mind the new apps for the i-phones and i-pads to the one that provides answers in detail, step-by-step for understanding to the textbooks currently being used. All the stuff that is missing in the textbooks and the constructivist instruction, that leaves the students swimming in the bog without the how-tos mastered. Its up to the students to figure they way out of the bog, without getting stuck in the quick sand traps and other nasties found in bogs. Just think how many students having lower skills in literacy and numeracy are stuck in the bogs of the sand traps, being slowly choked as the sand trap has its way with the students. The only hope is the i-phone app, to be used as a crutch with the faint hope that the educators and the K to 12 stakeholders receives an epiphany from the ivory towers of the K to 12 to change course away from the 19th century to the 21st century, embracing the researchers that were previously sneered at.
You state you have no interest in this subject,you also have no knowledge,why not pass on commenting so the very important subject matter does not get minimized by an on line squabble.
What i do know is that makes very little difference. If educational issues were ranked 1-10 in importance the problems related to weak results from poor kids is a 10. This issue is 2 at best.
BTW, look above. Paul asked me to comment.
Consider this reformers. Under any pedagogical regime the poor do badly, trades people kids better, middle class and professionals better again and the affluent on top.
Pure phonics or phonemic awareness makes no dent in that. In my 35 years of experience poor kids engage when the material has real meaning for them. Almost all teachers will tell you the same thing, especially Paulo Freire. 🙂
Taking my analogy of ‘kids being stuck in the sand traps’, a little further exploring what lies behind reading, writing and numeracy difficulties? Why is the public education system still mired in the 19th century knowledge matrix? I had a host of questions swirling in my head this morning that its source came from my personal experiences as a parent in the last 12 years, dealing with the public education system, and their responses to my concerns concerning my youngest child.
My first stop, to the CEA site, to explored their articles, papers, and research on literacy. What was missing in the literacy? The scientific terms in reading, such as this excerpt at the Children of the Code – “Difference in Processing Rates
John Stein at Oxford has also really developed this magno cellular deficit hypothesis which is one of the focuses right now in dyslexia research at the more physiological level. And it fits very, very well with the temporal spectral processing deficit. In fact, many of the current theories have in common that there seems to be some underlying difference in the processing rates of the individuals with difficulty in processing rapid transient information.
Joe Talcott and Carolyn Whitten and various other people who are in John Stein’s lab at Oxford have published some wonderful papers in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently, I think in 2000, that really fit well with the study I talked about with infants. Basically, it showed that the ability to process transient visual and/or auditory information is very highly correlated across the spectrum of individual differences and different levels of reading ability.”
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/library/refs/dyslexia.htm
Or on this page – the covering all aspects of reading – http://www.childrenofthecode.org/library/refs/index.htm#dyslexia
No, one won’t find magno cellular deficit hypothesis being discussed at the local teachers’ get-togethers. Nor the term transient visual information, in reference to reading instructional methods being discussed at the CEA site.Let alone the terms such as speed processing, sequencing, or auditory discrimination. Is it too much to asked the public education system, to have their employees updated to the 21st century knowledge? It must be a challenge, and more so when parents start speaking a different language of vocabulary based on the science. The very first term I learned but did not understand, was phonemic awareness in 2001. I was stunned, the grade 1 educator could not explain phonemic awareness, and then I was moved up for the principal and a director of education at the school board to help me understand. Of course, the next two meetings led me no further understanding of phonemic awareness, but I did get a crash course on what educators with master and PHD degrees in education that my child’s learning difficulties had everything to do with my parenting ability, educational levels and what I did not do or not do for my child. Thinking about it today, they were messing around with the wrong parent. It just made me that much more obstinate to stay the course, to understand phonemic awareness. Ergo, it has been my observation and experiences in the last 12 years, how the public education system sadly lacks the knowledge of 21st century knowledge, that should be common place and well known to one and all.
Still on the CEA site, I explored what they have for parental information.
Can We Accurately Predict a Student’s Future Success?
Click to access cea-2011-foe-predict.pdf
It concludes: “Parents and educators should be cautious in assuming that the future of their child may be predicted based on their current performance. Secondly, parents should be actively involved in supporting and advocating for their child rather than accepting a negative future. This might include being optimistic with the child about the future, or the child’s teacher identifying areas where home and school can work together.”
All the information and knowledge of the public education system directed at parents, has the underlying message of having parents to follow the dictates and edicts of the educators, of working together within defined parameters created and controlled by the public education system. The basic aim of the parental literature from the public education system is to encourage parents to stay within the confines of the public education system for their go-to source. It has not change much since 2001, and in the year 2013 parents are still not being given the information to understand why their children are experiencing difficulties. Instead, they are being given a clever mixed of generalized information, that is designed to encourage parents to stay within the parameters of the 19th knowledge matrix of the public education system.
On the Ontario Ministry of Education site – Tips for Parents
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/abc123/eng/tips/
Much of it is what any parent will do for their children, and there is little difference in the books of the 1960s on raising children as it is for the 2013 version on the Ontario Ministry of Education site. The language has change to reflect the 21st century, but what is missing the 21st century knowledge of the science in the learning, cognitive and neuro-science fields.
Pressing on Does Your Child Needs Help?
“As a parent, it is important to recognize your child’s challenges and work together with the teacher to make sure the necessary help is received.
Recognizing that your child needs extra help is not always easy. Here are some common signs to watch out for.
Your children may need extra help when:
Marks are below average
A teacher talks to you directly on the issue
There seems to be too much homework
Homework seems consistently too difficult
Talking about school or a certain subject puts a child in a bad mood
They avoid talking to you about the topic
They find excuses such as illness to avoid school
They are easily and happily distracted from homework”
Note, how parents become less capable, don’t have the skills and abilities to understand and recognized that their children need extra support. Note the emphasis on the teacher’s expertise. Note the general focus on behaviour of child but no emphasis on the actual quality of work and effort of the child.
The quality and substance of the information being directed at parents, is poor and does little for parents to effectively advocate for their children to provide for their education needs.
Nor will parents find articles like the one on the LD online to advocate for their children – http://www.ldonline.org/article/107
Not on the menu of the Canadian public education system, nor the reading science found in many places except in the public education system.
Nor will parents find articles on dyslexia on any of the Canadian school boards and ministries of education that provides quality information, that informs and educate parents. One would be hard pressed to find educators knowing all the signs of dyslexia at the moment, and it would be an easier task to find the parents with the knowledge.
Dyslexia: Beyond the Myth
http://www.ldonline.org/article/277
Concerning literacy and numeracy, where once again whole language is rearing its ugly head, it has been noted by the outside researchers whole language instruction and its clones has been helped along by the assessments and evaluations that are not measuring what they should be measuring. Or in one paper – ” There are two important realities in testing. Tests do not always measure what they appear to measure, and not all tests measure reading, writing, and math skills comprehensively”
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/test.read.farrall.htm
Tests and Measurements for the Parent, Teacher, Advocate and Attorney
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6026
How many educators, directors of school boards with PHDs, staff at the education ministry would understand the implications of instructional practices in relationship to the results of the measurements? Or truly understand the scores of the Working Memory Index and its relationship to instructional practices? Not to many would, nor would the guidance counselors.
The lack of the 21st century knowledge of learning, cognitive and neuro-science in the public education system leads to the typical scenario of students not reaching their potential, and it shows the most in students who have the lower skills in reading, and by extension writing and numeracy.
“Katie’s scores are evidence that she could excel in discussions of complex literature in an honors English class because of her reasoning abilities, but she is unable to write what she knows. Since Katie cannot write what she knew, she was placed in slow-paced remedial classes. Because her abilities were untapped, Katie concluded that she was stupid and wanted to quit school.”
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6026
Its what I as a parent was up against. My youngest child could not expressed herself in writing, and the solutions that flows from the public education system is to dumb it down. Ignore the reading and writing based on the science of the 21st century, and employed the solutions of the 19th century knowledge matrix.
Finally, to the real experts – “More than 2,800 employees work at ETS’s offices throughout the United States and the world. Of these, more than 1,100 of our professional staff have training and expertise in education, psychology, statistics, psychometrics, computer sciences, sociology and the humanities. Six hundred have advanced degrees, and 250 hold doctorates. In addition, another 2,500 employees support ETS’s wholly owned subsidiary Prometric™.”
http://www.ets.org/about/who/
On the front page – http://www.ets.org/research
At the bottom a video entitled – Positioning Educational Assessment for the 21st Century
Best 10 minutes a person should be doing. Yes, indeed the researchers that lie outside the public education system are coming at the public education at all sides. Each represents a threat to the cozy set-up of the public education stakeholders and their insistence of staying in the 19th century knowledge matrix. As Paul has questioned – “When will research-based best practice be enshrined in policy documents, begin to reach classroom teachers and actually come to the rescue of children struggling with learning to read?”
Keep plugging away at the bottom by providing the knowledge to the parents, the educators and just to let the educrats and educationalists know constantly, the jig is up – the monopoly of the public education system and its love for the 19th century knowledge matrix is going down for the fall.
At ETS – Fault lines in our Democracy http://www.ets.org/s/research/19386/
To correct, a good place and the only place to correct it begins in reading, writing and numeracy proficiency levels of students, that enables one and all students to understand the civics knowledge needed to understand the democratic tenets and principles that our society rests upon.
That said, its time to become change agents to force the public education monopoly to get out of the 19th century matrix and into the 21st century matrix of knowledge. Its time to get the students out of the sand traps in the bogs of the public education system, and unto the fertile land that supports the foundation of literacy and numeracy, so all students can achieved and learned reaching their potential.
From Dr.Sally Shaywitz Doug-You should really be “open”to learning what works for the kids and teachers,people like you stop the correct specific work from getting executed.It`s a very important issue,far greater than any other.
These children can copy the word correctly. For example, they can copy w-a-s for was and say the letters correctly. But when we ask them what word they copied, they say, “saw.” So it’s not a question of having the visual, perceptual skills but of what they do with a word on the page. How do we bring the print to language? Again, the brain mechanism of going from print to language is phonologically based. We have to transcode the print. We have to appreciate that the print stands for words that can be broken into smaller phonologic units and that the grapheme, the letter or the letter groups, represents these bits of language. When we look at print, we activate areas in the back of the brain that have to do with vision, convert the print to language by using areas farther forward in the brain that have to do with transcoding, and then use areas of the brain that get to the meaning of language. The important thing to remember is that although for ease of communication the system is described as linear, in fact, information is transmitted bidirectionally and in parallel.
Educators are vitally interested in information that can help them teach reading. Many middle school and high school teachers, in particular, haven’t been taught how to teach reading.
I find it curious that teachers are often blamed for their students’ poor reading. Of all the people to whom I lecture, the largest group, the most committed group, is teachers. They’re the ones who want to know, “What do we know about reading? What can I take back to my classroom?” We haven’t been able to provide teachers until recently with a knowledge base of what reading is all about. But fortunately, we—and when I say “we,” I mean the whole scientific community that studies reading—now really understand the reading process from both cognitive and behavioral perspectives and, increasingly, from neurobiological perspectives. This evidence supports the fact that reading is part of language. To read, we have to break up spoken words into smaller units, understand that letters represent sounds, have a knowledge base, have a vocabulary, and have the motivation and enjoyment.
Teachers now have a template, a scientifically based template, to guide them in how they teach reading. If they use this approach, they can actually make a difference.
I have a specialist certificate in special ed. I have seen all of this before. Nothing new.
All special ed teachers and teachers I have trained ,even at a Masters level or even a PH D level have told me they have hunted for years for the “how to”.
It is very true that training across Canada is missing for this expertise-if it existed,what is going on in B.C. and Nova Scotia wouldn`t be happening.
Teachers everywhere say they are taught the different competing theories in the Reading field,never,”how to”.and we all know,they want to do it right.Their intentions are honourable.
Jo anne, if you were placed in charge of Ontario education and could institute any reading policy you like, ten years later you would see that nothing in particular had changed in the results.
That is because 80% is determined outside of the school. No get child poverty down to 5% kike Finland and the results would be dramatic.
Take me up on it!
Nancy-magno cellular deficit hypothesis-only 5 % of students have this-the other 95% have the phonological processing problem as a cardinal deficit.
Mary Ann Wolfe-Tufts University
I will restrict my comments to concerns of SES and Reading Instruction:
With evidence-based reading instruction, we can teach most all children to read and we can eliminate differences in basic reading skills between children of different socio-economic and linguistic backgrounds. For just two illustrations, I refer to research out of BC.
“Research out of the North 44 Vancouver Board of Education demonstrates the effectiveness of evidence-based reforms in reading education and the effects for groups of children who traditionally have lower overall achievement in reading. Although expected influences of SES and English language learning status are seen in the earliest grades, these are no longer associated with reading skills by 2nd and 3rd Grade (D’Anguilli, Siegel, & Hertman, 2004; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Despite the fact that over 25% of students were at risk on composite measures in Kindergarten, by the end of Grade 4, less than 3% of English first and second language learners were below the 30th percentile on reading measures. In another study, as reported in McIntosh et al. (2011), an RTI approach (with intervention in phoneme awareness and phonics for those at-risk) allowed literacy scores to increase steadily over the four years of implementation. Results from the 4th year showed that 92% of students were meeting or exceeding grade-level expectations on Grade 4 provincial tests (compared to 68% provincially) as were 94% of Aboriginal students (compared to 51% of Aboriginal students provincially)”.
Quote from Metsala, 2012:
http://literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa=items.show&topicId=312
The Children of the Code – A Canadian researcher focusing on ESL learners.
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/caravolas.htm
However Jamie, the work being done for ESL learners within the public education system, has impacted the other students without a second language. Whatever the difficulties in reading, a lot of students end up receiving the same type of support as the ESL students. LD and dyslexic learners need different reading supports than the ESL learners. A funding problem or just another one-sized-fits-all solutions of school boards? Many parents have complained about it, on the parent forums. Since, the ESL learners have been slotted under Special Education, it is becoming a lot more crowded, creating in-fighting over resources and funding of remediation in the 3 Rs.
As noted, evidence-based reading instruction is what should be in the schools. Why isn’t it? My own child according to the research, would only need 100 to 125 hours of intensive instruction. Too late now, and she will be graduating this year, with the same reading problems as in grade 1, that could have been corrected. Her only hope when she reaches university. Perhaps someone in one of the research departments at the university, would take pity on her, and reteach her reading from scratch. I asked for it every year once my child was in high school,. but was denied. Hell we even have two qualified teachers from the elementary school, that would have done it for my child. The teachers are not allow to tutor privately, because it is against school board regulations.
When one takes a look at the policies, regulations and the administrative/operations – its a wonder the kids with reading struggles actually learned to read, but not very good, and stay in school. The deck is rigged and stacked against the children who have the learning struggles, and made all the worse if the children are being impacted by the SES variables. The only thing Canada got going for them, is universal medicare. Having access to health services. It is easier to get health care, than to access education services for your child in the public education system.
That said, back to Jamie’s study, in Canada its really hard to track down the research that is occurring in Canada’s public education ivory towers to the schools and outside of the public education system. Just goes to show, what can be done to obtain a 90 something results, using evidence-based reading instruction. As Jamie’s link has stated, ” This impedes teachers learning about, receiving professional development in, and having access to research-based intervention programs and strategies. As Scanlon et al. (2008) note “it is now widely acknowledged that many students currently identified as learning disabled would not have been identified if instruction has been appropriately targeted and responsive” (p. 346). Broader research and outreach efforts which focus on systemic reform, including instantiations of RTI within school systems, will continue to address these ongoing issues concerning failure in teaching all children to become proficient readers.”
I will just comment on Jamie`s concern for the SES sector.
I hope Carolyn Acker,the formidable education pioneer from Pathways to Education doesn`t mind that I refer to a recent private conversation-she also showed in her research from Regent Park that SES was not the ultimate predictor of failure ,inversely,with the right support many of these students were able to graduate from high school and go on to post secondary.
Jamie has shown us the same thing in her posting.
It`s absolutely necessary it seems to think out of the box to set a new path because fighting with ‘the old boys”is a disastrous waste of time and energy.Their motives aren`t improvement,they`re validation for their theories.
How do we help the 40% of children who don`t succeed in the system as it is and yet we know the answers?
Maureen Lovett is a top-notch international researcher and along with her team from the Hospital for Sick Children has been doing some of the best research on interventions for children with reading disabilities/dyslexia for the past 30 years. EmpowerTM, a reading intervention program, was being implemented in more than 100 schools and 6 Southern Ontario school boards (as well as several schools boards in other provinces) several years ago and has been adopted by more school boards since that time (see links on Maureen Lovett and the Learning Disabilities Research Program).
http://www.sickkids.ca/LDRP/index.html
http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/Directory/People/L/Maureen-Lovett-staff-profile.html
Another Canadian program for children with reading disabilities/difficulties/dyslexia is SpellRead — developed by Kay McPhee in PEI and researched by Joe Torgesen. Dale Willows, Rhonda Martinussen, and Esther Geva at OISE have researched and taught B.Ed. and M.Ed. students concerning evidence-based reading instruction for many years, not to name those at Queens and other institutes.
We have Canadian research and programs — for children with reading disabilities/dyslexia as well as for ALL young learners (see Firm Foundations — the Kindergarten Classroom program that is the basis of Linda Siegel’s longitudinal studies — http://www.nvsd44.bc.ca/Firmfoundations/main.html . Watch the videos of Kindergarten teachers talking about this play based phonological awareness program and the children engaged in the program).
However, going back to the original blog entry and the impetus for this conversation, the HRSB results for the Succeeding in Reading Approach, it should be noted that we are not talking primarily about children with reading disabilities/dyslexia. Consider these statistics; In the HRSB Superintendent’s Annual Report 2011-2012, it was noted that “the percentage of students meeting expectations for reading (accuracy and fluency)” is 68% in grade 2 English and 65% in grade 2 French Immersion http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/HRSBSuperintendentsReport2012/?page_id=634 . In the latest Minister’s Report to Parents posted on line (2011), 74% of the grade 3 students in Nova Scotia were reported to be “meeting the expectations” in reading, and 56% were doing so in the category of narrative writing http://mrpg.ednet.ns.ca/sites/default/files/mrpg%20brochure%20english%20website%20version%20FINAL%20may%2022.pdf. In the Succeeding in Reading HRSB report, 1069 students received support from a total of 3444 students in grade 1 – or about 31% of the grade 1 population -http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/Downloads/pdf%5Creports%5C2012-2013%5CJanuary%5C13-01-1385.pdf
(I will not get into a discussion of the measures used to select these children or categorize as “meeting expectations”).
These are not consistent with expected rates of reading disabilities and dyslexia. Our discussion is about evidence-based reading instruction for all children and for children at-risk for reading disabilities — about prevention of reading difficulties/disabilities. The 3-5 percent of children whose reading does not come within the average range given evidence-based early reading interventions (for review see Al Otaiba & Torgesen, 2007; see Siegel fact sheet http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.research-works.ca%2FPDFfiles%2FFacts-Siegel.pdf&ei=eskLUd2jL8fh0wHD34HYCQ&usg=AFQjCNF3P7Ej1jdOgbiO0wJtVlsBbV2xqQ&bvm=bv.41867550,d.dmQ ) will then need further interventions and support within the school system. However, when rates of reading difficulties are so high, a school system will be too overwhelmed to help individual children in tertiary settings, such as resource programs.
Reference:
Al Otaiba, S., & Torgesen, J. (2007). Effects from intensive standardized kindergarten and first-grade interventions for the prevention of reading difficulties. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 212-222). New York, NY: Springer.
One of the things this thread speaks to is that while schools are much better at educating all children than they were a century ago,
– students need to stay in school much longer
– we know much more about how we learn then we used to
= parents know more than they used to about schools
so
demands are much higher than in the past.
There is a gap, can schools close it
or
at least keep it from expanding as demands increase
for things school were-
perhaps still may be-
not equipped or designed to handle.
The 21st century is both complex and unpredictable.
In many aspects of society, including education.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3650708.ece
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2206649
The very unpopular Tory government of the UK has gone hog wild with phonics. I assume they will soon climb past Canada, Korea and Finland. (eyes roll).
On Children of the Code – Changing Trajectories
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/Tour/c7/phonics-v-whole.htm
On the left side – the reading problems
On the right side – the suggestions to end the reading problems based on the science
At the bottom – Phonics vs. Whole language
Worth the time for one and all. The public education system as it is today, has the structure and framework in place, and it can be done using less education funding using the 21st knowledge framework. Primary teachers in one summer could be trained by attending one to two week sessions at the private firms and organizations who have developed reading programs and instruction based on the science of reading. The special educators teachers could likewise attend the summer sessions, duly certified for the Barton or Wilson or other high quality effective reading programs for the children who will need the extra support beyond the general classroom. The teachers would be in good company with the parents of all sorts and sizes to help their children to learned to read.
Listen to the above short video clips – “Over the last decade a series of neuroscience breakthroughs and educational research findings have led to an entirely new understanding of the challenges involved in learning to read. However, though we still have much to learn, the challenge today has less to do with the science involved and more to do with bridging the social-educational gap and overcoming the resistance that inhibits getting what we do know to the educators and parents who most need to understand it. ”
The above quote on the front page of the Children of the Code.
It can be done, and by doing so the schools would become very effective at dealing with the external SES variables that robs effective learning in the classroom, but also steals and redirect education funding away from remediation and learning in the classroom, to placate the symptoms of the SES variables that are never going to go away.
If the education faculties will not provide it, why not have partnerships with the private sector involved with the reading sciences? I can’t see the education faculties making an 180 degree turn on reading instruction, let alone trained teachers based on the science of the 21st century. They are still in the dark age of the 19th century, where dyslexic children are seen as the ones hard to teach, and as a result are condemn to a life time of low literacy and numeracy skills.
A satire piece in the WP – “Down the rabbit hole of education reform”
The ending – “She winks at me as I hear eerie voices coming from all parts of the forest – “Academic Rigor,” “Common Core,” “Next Generation Learning,” “Standards Based Reform,” “Proficiency,” and ”Brain Based Learning” with a booming response echoing through the trees, “as opposed to what? – stomach based!?”
I begin to run, faster and faster. I realize that I haven’t seen any children. I wonder where they’ve gone. How could any child not want to be in Wonderland?
I wake up in a cold sweat.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/28/down-the-rabbit-hole-of-education-reform/
Connected to reading and school
“Children’s complex thinking skills begin forming before they go to school”
“New research at the University of Chicago and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill shows that children begin to show signs of higher-level thinking skills as young as age 4 ½. Researchers have previously attributed higher-order thinking development to knowledge acquisition and better schooling, but the new longitudinal study shows that other skills, not always connected with knowledge, play a role in the ability of children to reason analytically.
The findings, reported in January in the journal Psychological Science, show for the first time that children’s executive function has a role in the development of complicated analytical thinking. Executive function includes such complex skills as planning, monitoring, task switching, and controlling attention. High early executive function skills at school entry are related to higher than average reasoning skills in adolescence.
Growing research suggests that executive function may be trainable through pathways, including preschool curriculum, exercise and impulse control training. Parents and teachers may be able to help encourage development of executive function by having youngsters help plan activities, learn to stop, think, and then take action, or engage in pretend play, said lead author of the study, Lindsey Richland, assistant professor of comparative human development at the University of Chicago.
Although important to a child’s education, “little is known about the cognitive mechanisms underlying children’s development of the capacity to engage in complex forms of reasoning,” Richland said.
The new research is reported in the paper “Early Executive Function Predicts Reasoning Development” and follows the development of complex reasoning in children from before the time they go to school until they are 15. Richland’s co-author is Margaret Burchinal, senior scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.”
http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/01/23/children-s-complex-thinking-skills-begin-forming-they-go-school
The research on executive functions are also missing in action in the Canadian public education system. Rather exciting news, and confirms what I thought but had not been confirmed way back in 2005, when I wanted some help at the school level concerning my youngest executive functions. Children who do not have proficiency in reading, writing and numeracy will have reduced levels of executive functions. I believe my child had high development of executive function prior to starting formal schooling. Not receiving the support in reading, impacted her executive functions. Reading the research in 2005, and help for children having weak executive functions, I thought she needed help in this area. Of course the school turned it down, and the only access was a program meant specifically for autism children that the school did not have. Another job landed on my lap,but well worth it since my now 17 year old has strong reasoning abilities despite her difficulties in decoding. If my child’s reading problems were corrected in the primary grades, she would now be at her full academic potential, and probably getting 90 something average with the accommodation in place for extra time on tests/exams. Instead, it is a struggle for her to maintain a 80 something average, 3 hours – 5 days a week – to keep up with the reading and to review lessons of the days. The homework is the easy part. When she slacks off, it shows in her tests, dipping into the 60s and 70s, but daily review makes for shorter hours where a test may only required 15 minutes of her time, keeping her test grades up in the 80s or higher.
[…] ArtsArt Rubicon Visual Arts MagazineReturn to the Reading Wars: Why Has the War on Phonics Gone UndergroundMAKEVisual Arts .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 […]
Today the Conference Board of Canada released the list of 17 rich OECD nations and how well they deal with poverty inequality, etc. Naturally the northern European countries, especially the far northern European nations eith social-democratic traditions, led the pack.
The list seemed so congruent with the list of nations with outstanding education results. The more unequal your society, the worse your education results will be.
These nations figured out decades ago that if you want to eliminate weak educational results from the poor, the best way is to eliminate poverty.
There is new research conclusive in 1995 from the NICHD(a half billion dollar 35 year longitudinal study) that has not found it`s way to “practice” and implementation for many reasons. One reason,unlike health where optimal new research implementation occurs through medication and doctors worldwide,education has a habit of being narcissistic and each educator operates on their opinion.The other answer is that the education companies are giant political behemoths that disseminate competing theories.They also seem to lack a certain integrity that only materials grounded in research should be disseminated to schools,shouldn`t they operate like a pharmaceutical company?
Quote from Stanovich,Romance and Reality,1994
“Education`s well known susceptibility to the authority syndrome stems from it`s tacit endorsement of a personalistic view of knowledge acquisition:the belief that knowledge resides within particular individuals who then dispense it to others.Knowledge in science is publicly verifiable
and thus depersonalizedin the sense that it is not the unique possession of particular individuals or groups.”
I could actually quote the whole article..I suggest that you read it.
Read Jamie`s research on her first posting here…
Frankly,it`s very discouraging.
Oh really Doug – you should provide the links.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx
A C grade for Canada out of 17 peer countries.
The next link is of more interest – “When it comes to education in particular, some countries are ahead of the game. What does a “well-educated” country look like? Things like high school graduation rates, number of citizens with a college degree, and even things like employment and rate of pay, can be combined together to serve as a reasonable meter for educational success. At the end of 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculated what proportion of residents in 34 countries had obtained a college degree or the equivalent of one. From there, the top 10 “most educated” countries were determined. Some countries are more surprising than others, but all seem to have their own unique way of ensuring that their citizens are educated properly. While not all countries have the same resources available to create wonderful education opportunities, those countries that use their highly-educated citizens to further world progress and assist those countries who have less can do amazing things for the future. Take a look at the stats behind these well-learned nations.”
http://www.educationnews.org/higher-education/most-educated-countries/
Lovely graphics and charts. Check the literacy rates – Rather odd that the adult literacy rate of adults with low literacy levels are approaching the 50 % mark. The exception is Finland. which is in and around at the 30 % mark.
What a scream to look at the 100 to 99 % literacy rates. In this chart, Canada places at the 26th mark.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lit_tot_pop-education-literacy-total-population
Meanwhile in Great Britain – adult low literacy rates are approaching at the 60 % mark. What do they have at Nation Master and at the OECD – at the 99% mark and places at the 26th mark same as Canada.
Over in Australia – “Though not necessarily illiterate, an estimated seven million Australians are struggling with low literacy levels. The most recent national snapshot of Australians’ ability to read and write was the 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, conducted as part of a wider OECD study. It divided literacy into four domains – prose literacy, document literacy, numeracy and problem-solving. Forty-six per cent of Australians surveyed scored poorly on the prose scale, 47 per cent did badly on the document scale while the results in numeracy and problem solving were even worse. ”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-14/maher-the-right-to-read-and-write/3829196
Over at the Canadian Conference Board – the same one Doug was talking about – Adult Literacy Rate—Low-Level Skills
Finland is at the 37.2 % mark. and Canada get a B grade. One has to wonder the measures to come out with a B, having over 40 % of the adult population having low literacy skills.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education/adult-literacy-rate-low-skills.aspx
Over at the Euro-Skills web pages – “One of the challenges in measuring literacy rates is the various definitions used by different stakeholders linked to different populations, including students (at different
stages in their compulsory education) and adults. The EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy classifies reading literacy and numeracy into three distinct categories: baseline, functional and multiple ”
Click to access LiteracyNumeracy_en.pdf
The high literacy rates must be measures at the lowest possible baseline to come out with 99 % literacy rate. Just almost half of Canadians have low literacy skills, but we can’t let that get in the way of the narrative and the myths that Canada is now number one, with United States placing fourth for the most educated countries in the world.
The false impressions by such statistics, also goes a long way to prevent literacy and numeracy reforms in Canada. The education ministries, much less the federal government would see no reason to change literacy and numeracy instruction. But as I have observed, which is a big fat warning to Canada, once passed the 50 % mark of adults with low literacy and numeracy levels, just like in Europe – reforms took place that included school choice. United Kingdom is one such country, with Finland having minor tremors of increases in home schooling, and immigrants who are not too happy with the Finland’s schools. Minor, compared to other European countries such as Germany and France. The education powers are going after the teachers’ unions who insist on progressive methods without emphasis on the 3 Rs.
Poverty theory indeed? What Canada has, like the other countries have is a crisis in literacy and numeracy instruction and curriculum content, that are based on the 19th century knowledge matrix and not on the 21st century knowledge matrix!
We can all read Nancy. You are practically alone in your crisis language. People come to Ontario from all over the world to see how we are so successful. Of course we will probably start to regress due to the teacher bashing.
Not just people Doug. Just other like-minded educators with teachers’ certificates and BEds, who are at their wits end, trying to keep the status-quo.
It must be worrisome, when the top people of the high social-economic status attending the Davos conference of 2013, to be discussing the worrisome trend of students leaving high school without the required skill sets needed for post-secondary learning. Bottom line Doug – the literacy and numeracy levels of students. Or the new trend spreading across Canada at the college and university level, of having first year students passing a math assessment either before admittance or in the beginning of the new school year, and to determine if students will need to take a remediation math course on on the basic foundations or simply needs upgrading. For the universities, dismal stats of up to 40 % of first year students are in need of remediation and upgrading in math, even though their grades are in the 80s and 90s. What is the math evaluation or testing all about? From straight addition, to long division to fraction and straight to advance algebra and pre-calculus. And they are even doing it in Europe.
Over at the Canada Conference Board – an interesting gem, that has been confirmed in other English speaking countries – “Most literacy intervention programs target individuals at the lowest literacy level. Those who are “marginally literate” are often overlooked for workplace literacy programs, partially because they generally overstate their literacy skills and are unaware of the need to upgrade their skills. A full 80 per cent of the “marginally literate” in Canada identified themselves as having “excellent” or “good” literacy skills.3 Efforts to improve literacy among this group are cost-effective because this group has already achieved a basic level of literacy. Moving this group up to a solid level 3—considered to be the minimum “job standard” level that enables employees to cope with the demands of work—would be less expensive and involve fewer resources, per capita, than moving the group of employees with extremely rudimentary level 1 literacy skills up to level 3.”
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education/adult-literacy-rate-low-skills.aspx
On other papers, it states it starts in the public education K to 12 system, where there is virtually no effective remediation and funding to addressed the majority of students that might constitute 60 % of the student population who are struggling in some aspect or all aspects in literacy and numeracy but are sitting at basic or level 2, or just sitting at level 3, one point above the level two scores. The students are just made to swim in the inclusive classroom, while funding is redirected to the students with the lowest levels, or funding is redirected to a select targeted group that has to meet a narrow criteria, that includes SES variables. What happens if a student does not meet the SES criteria – parents get to go shopping for a private tutor and if not, they have to do it themselves and if not, just get on their knees praying that the school takes pity and helps the students.
It has already been proven that is another two mountains high, that remediation in literacy and numeracy is most effective when the students are young, but what is really cost-effective provide quality research-based reading instruction based on the reading science for all students. Instead in 2013, students are still being taught using whole language methods based on the 19th century education knowledge matrix.
It would be interesting to look at literacy levels over time.
I suspect the bar is higher now than it was a few decades ago.
I know it is higher than it was a century ago.
If the trend of recent decades is as I claim
then the challenge is to keep up or catch up.
I ran across this Wikipedia article on the History of Literacy and Levels. It was a passage for Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy
Near the bottom – “In a 2012 proposal, it has been claimed that reading can be acquired naturally if print is constantly available at an early age in the same manner as spoken language.[53] If an appropriate form of written text is made available before formal schooling begins, reading should be learned inductively, emerge naturally, and with no significant negative consequences. This proposal advances knowledge and understanding because it challenges the commonly held belief that written language requires formal instruction and schooling. Its success would change current views of literacy and schooling. Using developments in behavioral science and technology, an interactive system (Technology Assisted Reading Acquisition, TARA) would enable young pre-literate children to accurately perceive and learn properties of written language by simply exposure to the written form.
The broader impacts of this possibility are far reaching. The inability to read is prevalent around the world and discouragingly present even in American society. The cost of illiteracy as well as the huge cost of formal literacy instruction is one of the major financial burdens on societies. In addition, many students who are considered literate still have difficulty in comprehension which may be related to making reading instruction contingent on spoken language. By embedding the child in written language, their learning to read becomes embodied in the same manner as learning spoken language. The success of the project will have a huge impact teaching, training, and learning. This innovative intervention would also help redirect financial resources where they will have the most impact. Although 90% of private and public education spending is on children between the ages of 6 and 19, 90% of brain growth occurs before age 6. Spending for nurturing children for literacy before age 6 will be a large market and will have the most impact in improving the quality of life, especially those children who reside on the wrong side of the digital divide”
Now where have we heard the term naturally in what body of theories? Kenneth Goodman – the godfather of whole language. Whole language lives on, even in Wikipedia articles.
my understanding is that reading is acquired differently from spoken.
The Goodmans have been justly criticized from their stance.It was not evidence-based.
Marilyn Jager Adams has noted the challenges of reading historically.
John,I think you`ll get a great deal out of this paper!I was happy to see your response.Our other problem is IRA
Click to access 3-HEARING-ON-LITERACY.pdf
Ried Lyon is NOT a reading specialist and may have an agenda.
I would rather look to systems that succeed. The US is not one of those.
Some of this has to do with the range of inequality, but not all. Doug is simply wrong to link all differences to SES. This is not so.
This goes back to the Coleman study of 1966.
Even James Coleman in the early 70s in work seldom cited revisited his data and though it not definitive.
Do we do enough Direct INstruction in the early grades?
Likely we do not
Do we use interest based reading in grades 3-6 once kids have cracked the code? No
Ha,Reid Lyon has zero agenda-Not a reading specialist?
Give me a break!
Oh.Dr.Stanovich is his friend,why don`t you call him and see what he`s been through with this &*#$%-I thought you`d had a breakthrough.
Read all the Jack Fletcher and Reid Lyon and Barbara Foorman and J Torgesen studies…
From his bio
“Dr. Lyon received his Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico in 1978 with a dual concentration in Special Education (learning disabilities and disorders) and psychology (developmental neuropsychology)”
not quite the same as a reading specialist
Then he ventured into policy
and that is always a quagmire
and far from a science.
On the other hand, being poor is not a guarantee of poor learning.
I and many others are proof of that.
Sorry doug, while we as teachers cannot control what students bring to our classes, we can do our best to help them. And the overwhelming evidence is that this is possible.
(Hattie, Marzano, Edmonds, even Engelmann).
But if people refuse to get past their blinders, I think I shall return to my classes and make those changes I cant.
adios
Despite overwhelming evidence, the reading field rushed to embrace unfounded whole-language practices between 1975 and 1995. The effects have been far-reaching, particularly for those students who are most dependent on effective instruction within the classroom.
Whole language persists today for several reasons. A pervasive lack of rigor in university education departments has allowed much nonsense to infect reading-research symposia, courses for teachers, and journals. Many reading programs have come to covertly embody whole-language principles. Additionally, many state standards and curricular frameworks still reflect whole-language ideas.
The evidence is overhelming that SES is the overwhelming (not only) relationship between those with reading difficulties and social class.
I love it when the EQAO results come out, just like the league tables in UK or SAT or NAEP and they show a staggeringly tight relationship between SES and results and the Fraser Institute or Heritage Foundation digs through the entrails of this data for weeks and finds 2-3 schools where one poor school did better than some other poor school and comes to the conclusion “you see it is not SES because this school out of thousands beat that school.”
It reminds everyone involved that the tobacco industry for many years said look, tobacco cannot be bad for your health because here is Fred, who is 94 years old and smoked his entire adult life. If we can find one Fred, the theory that smoking is bad for your health must be bogus.
If we look at any jurisdiction and take the teachers and their style from the most successful school and the least successful school and switch the entire staff it will not make a whit of difference. That is because we can control for good teaching, advanced pedagogy good administration and it makes basically no difference.
Look at the total failure of “turnarounds” in the USA. They go to a school with poor results and try everything their advanced research tells them to do. It makes no difference. The poor do badly because the poor do badly. The way to make them do well is to make them less poor until, like northern Europe you can make the poor almost disappear. Poof, educational problems of any significance disappears at the same time.
Closing poor schools, vouchers charters and of that make no difference for one simple reason – the poor are still poor. Canada beats the USA badly in education for one and only one reason, far less inequlality.
Im sick and tired of all the excuses made to say it is the teachers, it is the pedagogy, it is the curiculum. That is all total bull *%#@. it is the poverty.
The rest is window dressing. Interesting discussions at the margins of the great educational issue.
At the Supreme Court of Canada, the lawyers for the education heavyweights stated, that 50 % of students will never reach average reading grade levels, based on the SES variables. The nine Supreme Court Justices did not buy it, and I am quite sure all nine judges were well verse and well prep on all facets of the Moore case.
The Supreme Court of Canada called it discrimination. As it should be, when school boards do not explore all avenues of remediation alternatives to addresses the reading, writing and numeracy deficits of students.The only reason why the school board and the school did not explored all avenues of remediation given because it would cost too much. The Supreme Court of Canada did not buy that one either. Nor did the court buy the SES reason either.
I am sure the nine judges had two mountains of evidence what could have been done for the Moore boy using the resources and skills of the teachers on hand. For example send a teacher to be trained at a cost of $500 or so on one of the dyslexic methods based on the Orton-Gillingham method. Some educators have done this on their own, and their students are much better off than the students in another school down the street.
Regardless, where ever my child fell on the SES ladder – what my child needed was good quality reading and numeracy instruction starting in grade. 1. She never received it.
As of yet, I still have not found any literature, any papers across the globe stating anywhere that 50 % of students never reached average reading levels because of SES variables. What I have found so far is just scuttlebutt and opinions based on personal belief systems, and much of it coming from the teachers’ union camp. I looked every week, and maybe I might get lucky this week. I just get this sick feeling, its coming out of the 19th century knowledge matrix because in the 19th century more than likely only 50 % of students probably obtained average and above reading and numeracy levels. The other 50 % went to work, and never went beyond grade 8. I can understand it in the 19th century, but there is no more excuses considering we are in the 21st century knowledge matrix for children not having decent levels of literacy and numeracy.
The nature of an average (more likely a median) is that 50% will be below average.
In any class of 20 kids, 10 (roughly) are below average by definition.
It is impossible to have all kids above average because average moves up with success..
Coming at a different angle in the 21st century .
Android Apps for Challenged Spellers
http://helpforstrugglingreaders.blogspot.ca/2013/02/android-apps-for-challenged-spellers.html
It becomes a big challenge for educators and parents to keep up with the rapid advances in technology. School boards, and along with the ministries could be doing a much better job on keeping educators , parents and students updated on new technology and apps that are relatively inexpensive and/or free.
” This week, we wanted to provide a collection of spelling apps for Android devices (and 1 for the Kindle Fire). Spelling is very often a serious challenge for struggling readers, contributing to less fluency and poor comprehension. Recently, we have had more than a few requests for Android spelling apps. So we hope this new list of Android spelling apps will address that pressing need.”
Just this pass weekend, I had another app for the i-phone in my e-box. I send it off to my 17 year old, it covers all American math textbooks from grades 1 through 12, including calculus. But that’s not new, what is new is providing step by step, solutions to the textbook questions. Using the very efficient algorithm calculations that are absent in the textbooks. The examples in the math textbooks are not clear, and becomes very confusing for students, resulting in frustrated students. When the trial period is over, I will pay $3.99 for it, because it works for my 17 year old.
My point is, there is so many advances, one would think the school board would dropped a consultant, for hiring a person at the board level connecting the technology or apps to the cognitive benefits and how it makes learning easier for the student. No point in having an app that is not facilitating learning, is there?
In the second article on a blog – The Struggles of a Reluctant Reader
http://helpforstrugglingreaders.blogspot.ca/2013/02/android-apps-for-challenged-spellers.html
Its a surprise ending. Why is it still happening in 2013? Why are education systems of K to 12 for the most part still using whole language approaches? Today, if Robert was in grade 1 using the reading science along with the 21st century assessments, the teacher would have pinpointed Robert’s root problems in reading, discovering in the process that he has excellent memory processes that are actually masking his root problems from coming to the surface. Would Robert in 2013, if he was entering grade 1 have become a doctor? Would he be picked up as needing support in reading in today’s classroom? The latter question, I somehow doubt it because Robert or my child would not meet the criteria to be considered needing support in reading. These are just some of the kids that are missed when using whole language approaches, assessments not based in the science and more importantly not remediating the root problems in reading, as soon as possible. As for my former question, its all depends on Robert’s strengths and a host of other variables. But in 2013, he could have easily become frustrated and feel like a failure considering by high school, what grade 11 and grade 12 students are learning in biology, math, and the other sciences were once upon a time at the first year university. Its real tough with lower literacy and numeracy skills.,
We are speaking about the ability to read and spell-not curriculum acquisition,there I know you`re right.
In the early grades,the children that learn to read,spell and write and thus have the confidence and ability to attain and use curriculum can be dramatically increased to 90%.
The numbers after that grade K-3 process is changed will improve.Read Jamie`s first post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/americas-poverty-education_b_1826000.html
If you watch education very carefully you naturally notice within education academics, “to a carpenter everything looks like a nail.”
Which means to reading specialists, reading policy is THE critical matter, to curriculum experts only curriculum matters, to pedagogical experts THAT is what matters, ECE experts make the case (a good one) that it is ECE that really matters. To educational sociologists, class, race and gender matters, and so on.
Nobody in education ever comes out and says “although I have spent my entire life in ECE it is really Special Ed that matters. You might guess that fear of a shift in funding priorities drives the turf defence but, in fact everyone wants to believe they made a contribution and what they worked on matters. Nobody wants THEIR priority devalued.
Its profit-driven Doug. To ensure that the public education system stays a monopoly. Patterns of expenditures within the public education system, that are deliberate in their intent to promote inefficiencies at the bottom – the schools and school districts that are guarantee to produced a set of diverse student outcomes – positive and negative outcomes – that ultimately spreads the blame or credit to multiple variables and factors. In essence, it sets up the conditions for people to separate in their individual silos and camps of what they value the most.
However Doug, better spend your time on other places, other than education. In reading science, or even cognitive science I have never read anywhere insisting there is only single factors that matter. Education policy and its expenditures are formulated on the inefficiencies, rather than on the efficiency of maximizing the greatest numbers of positive outcomes for students. For the public education system , its monopoly to survived, and to protect their employees, education policy must be based on the deficits of the students to maximized the greatest number of inefficiencies at the bottom of the education structures.
The above can be read on the economic pages. I also had a bit of luck in getting a little closer of the statement, that 50 % of students will not reach average grade level reading, as stated in the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is now leading me to the education faculties, a intelligence theory that has been thoroughly discredited and a host of diverse progressive educators with interesting theories why equity, social justice and other buzz words must be the only education policy and the only emphasis to counteract the SES variables. Academic achievement of students don’t matter, because it is based on the discredited intelligence theory, the cream will rise to the top, which will allow classroom teachers to aid the other students who need support by downgrading the academics. So far, I have traced it back to the 1980s, but I can only read so much of his stuff because its not good for my mental health.
A paper on the knowledge gap of students and connecting it to reading levels.
“But perhaps even more serious than skill deficiencies are knowledge deficiencies that arise for children who have limited access to the informal informational lessons that can be transmitted through day-to-day interactions. Although a significant amount of research has focused on differences in early language learning (McCardle and Chhabra, 2004), in vocabulary and phonemic awareness and how they might be acquired, there has been relatively little discussion of differences among children in content knowledge and its relationship to achievement. This is a critical oversight because indications are that limited content knowledge might ultimately account for what appear to be comprehension difficulties (Vellutino et al., 1996) or higher-order thinking difficulties in older children. Therefore, if children’s developing conceptual knowledge becomes subordinated to a focus on the relatively small number of necessary procedural skills early on, then the gap between socioeconomic status groups may widen with each successive grade level, building to insurmountable gaps after just a few
years of schooling.”
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/11767/
Why did the public education system reduced content knowledge that are needed to build the literacy and numeracy skills of students? I wager it has something to do with a discredited intelligence theory, and creating the optimum conditions for the public education system monopoly to thrive and grow at the expense of the pubic, its tax purse and the students they serve.
By hook and crook, I will get down to the bottom of it. At $12,000 per student, it is the pricey option, compared to the alternative education options of choice. Shouldn’t we expect all students to have high levels of literacy and numeracy at the price of $12,000 per student?
The public system reduced content kbowledge as a direct response to the NCLB and EQAO and similar idiotic testing regiimes.
Educators know, especially if testing is high stakes, that all other areas will be robbed of time and priority. If it is not tested, it will not be taught.
Daniel Willingham makes this point repeatedly that history geography science texts and resource materials are far better at advancing reading than “reading skills” materials.
The contradiction is within the very confused reform movement. Reformers are as Rick Hess says, too far from the classroom to understand this.
you win,you win anyway!
Here are some “reformers” who are starting to realize like Rick Hess, a lots of the reforms don’t work, those that do only work a little bit, there is no silver bullet, it will take many years, there needs to be a dialogue with “traditionalists”.
Take a look at the history of reform movements. They do not move relentlassly forward. They have huge setbacks, they get coopted, they get delayed, people lose interest, some of thir ideas fail, others are absorbed or compromised.
The tide in education runs about a 30 year cycle before it goes the other way. Brace yourselves.
http://illinoiscitizensforbetterschools.blogspot.ca/2013/02/icbs-takes-russo-challenge.html
“Research: Investigating the Literacy – Mental Health Relationship
by Learning-Activist on February 7, 2013 in Children of the Code, Comments on other sites, Healthy Learning, Unhealthy Learning
Kerry Hempenstall, Ph.D., a professor at RMIT university in Australia and lecturer on educational psychology, has compiled a list of research citations in support of my piece: What does it mean that most of our children are chronically improficient in the skill areas most critically important for success in school? ”
http://www.learningstewards.org/research-investigating-the-literacy-mental-health-relationship/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LearningStewards+%28LearningStewards.org%29
“The relationship between mental health and literacy is not easy to disentangle, as studies are mainly correlational. There does appear to be a link, but does illiteracy cause mental health problems, or might mental health problems impede literacy development? Or perhaps a third variable affects both domains. One obvious candidate is extended failure caused or exacerbated by inadequate instruction, particularly in that first big educational hurdle – literacy development.”
http://www.adihome.org/research/ed-research-blog/entry/literacy-and-mental-health
One that caught my eye – “”By the secondary grades, struggling readers have little confidence in their ability to succeed in reading and little sense of themselves as readers (Collins, 1996). Guthrie, Alao, and Rinehart (1997) noted an “eroding sense of confidence” in these students. They are acutely aware of their reading problems (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994) and likely to suffer serious psychological consequences, including anxiety, low motivation for learning, and lack of self-efficacy. … We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement.”
Inadequate reading instruction in the primary grades – On Learning Stewards, “What does it feel like – how does it feel, to be chronically, day after day, week after week, month after month, and for a great many children, year after year – not good enough? Not good enough at something that they know is important, that they know is causing them to fall behind, that they can’t seem to get good enough at achieving, and that they can’t hide because their family, friends, and peers know about it too? What is the effect of chronically feeling ‘not good enough’ about your learning?”
http://www.learningstewards.org/what-does-it-mean-that-most-of-our-children-are-chronically-improficient-in-the-skills-most-critically-important-for-success-in-school/
Teach Your Children Well: A Solution to Some of North America’s Educational Problems
“For the past 30 years, effective methods of teaching children and preventing illiteracy have been used in a small number of schools and learning centers across North America. Despite their proven effectiveness, these methods have never been adopted by mainstream educators. This book documents the use of three effective methods of making students successful in school: Behavior Analysis/Behavior Management, Direct Instruction, and Precision Teaching. It focuses on the method in which Michael Maloney combined these powerful technologies into a single whole to produce even more rapid academic gains for both children and adults.
For anyone with a child in school, an interest in education or literacy, or a concern for the quality of students that North American public education currently produces, this is a must-read book.”
“Earlier this week my colleague Alice Wiggins noted the strong alignment between the new Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) program and the Common Core State Standards for ELA & Literacy. Drawing on decades of cognitive science research, I made the case for a totally new approach to reading instruction in The Knowledge Deficit. It is heartening not only to see CKLA come to life, but for it to do so just as the nation is ushering new standards that support stronger, more research-based reading instruction.
I would hazard the guess that, because of its deep foundations in linguistic and cognitive science, CKLA has no peer among early literacy programs. Whenever students in CKLA have been accurately paired with a control group using another program, the CKLA students came out ahead on reading tests. The CKLA program is designed to optimize the use of time by students and teachers alike.”
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2013/01/31/why-is-there-so-much-listening-in-the-core-knowledges-reading-program/
A solution in search of a problem.Canada has the best 15 year old readers on Earth and the best 3 nations overall. People flock here from all over the world to see how well we are doing.
Very very few children with reading delays amongst the middle class and the affluent but only with the poor. Same quality of teachers, same methods, same curriculum,
Looks like the critical thing is poverty. We dont need vouchers or charters or alternative pedagogy or a different curriculum or testing or school closures we simply need to mitigate and eventually virtually eliminate poverty.
Conservatives tent to believe it is impossible to eliminate poverty or if you could it is not a good idea. I have one word for them Finland.
The people on another site are touting the good results from Sweden which is 90% public 10% voucher. They seem to miss the fact that Finland and Canada, without vouchers score much higher than Sweden.
Vouchers were established in Sweden by a conservative government that wins about once every 10 elections. There is a great deal if discontent with it. The middle class and upwont touch them. They are used by some low income white Swedes to escape schools with “too many” racial minorities. Shameful.
The top video on Google + – an inspiration.
Dr. Benjamin Carson’s Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Doug and there is others within the public education system, its there way, or the highway. For some its all about poverty and has nothing to do with the reading, writing and numeracy levels of students. If one should object, like the local provincial minister railing about the local opposition critic and his audacity to linked low adult literacy levels to the reading instruction methods of the public education system – they will bring up the amazing results of Canada being number 1 in education, or some other global stats to dismissed, ridicule all in the name to end the discussion. There is no problem, therefore there is no need for the public education system and its policies to change.
Dr. Carson is a testament to how bent and twisted the poverty theory is. Would Dr. Carson persevere, rising to become a top achiever in school today? I highly doubt it in the year 2013. Just reading his bio, would indicate he be at high risked for being at the bottom, unruly behaviour, and enough to probably land himself in jail based on the current education policies.
http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422?page=1
Would Dr. Carson’s mother who had a grade 3 education be treated with respect by the school staff in 2013? I somehow doubt it, because of the belief systems and attitudes held by the people with education degrees. Belief systems, the lower the education level, the less capable one is, education policy becomes a series of dumbing it down for students who have deficits and no redeeming attributes. Yes, Dr. Carson does mentioned the dumbing down in his speech. However, he had high praise for his mother because she believed in her children. In the same way I believed that my youngest child could succeed academically.
For my child, and many other children, anywhere between 40 to 60 percent of the student population are written off by the public education system starting in the primary grades. Like Dr. Carson, and like my child there is parallels. In the bio – “Determined to turn her sons around, Sonya limited their TV time to just a few select programs and refused to let them go outside to play until they’d finished their homework. She was criticized for this by her friends, who said her boys would grow up to hate her. But she was determined that her sons would have greater opportunities than she did. She required them to read two library books a week and give her written reports,even though with her poor education she could barely read them. She would take the papers and review them, scanning over the words and turning pages. Then she would place a checkmark at the top of the page showing her approval.”
Likewise the school, friends and family thought I was nuts to undertake home made cognitive exercises, the rarer drill and practice that really cannot be found in schools today, the undertaking of schooling my child on Latin and Greek root words, and the rewriting of her notes. They all thought it was a waste of time and effort on my part. They all knew, children who have difficulties in reading, writing and numeracy will never become good academic students. Of course the school, and the school board staff carries it further by giving the edict, at the very best she be a C student. Although my determination differs from Dr. Carson’s mother, the determination to show everybody how wrong they were, and more so for the school board educrats and the education policies that makes it a living hell for students who don’t have perfect cognitive processes in place.
This pass week, my youngest child’s senior year – she received two 85s for chemistry and calculus. Heady, but it shows how determined an individual can be in the face of the many overwhelming obstacles. Only made that much more of a win, when one teacher stepped up, just as determined to worked on the dyslexic mistakes, that could have transformed the 85s to the high 90s, provide lots of extra practice and work that education philosophies frowns on to reach for the next star – perhaps a 90 average. As a parent, my dyslexic child has gone beyond my knowledge banks, and I was never so grateful for a teacher to step in because she believes in my child. The teacher like a few other local high school teachers, know this in their hearts – If my child received the correct reading instruction, my child may indeed may never have been identified as having a learning disability. And she would have a 90 something average……..and reading would not be a struggle for her as it is today.
In the face of overwhelming obstacles, Dr. Carson succeeded. His message to everyone, dropped the preconceived beliefs and ideologies and start solving the problems that are faced in educating the youth. Too many students are left by the wayside in today’s public education system. My child who was definitely written off as not being academic material, might be the next shining star in 2022 in discovery the next science breakthrough, or she could become a superstar in authoring children’s novels. Just like Dr. Carson’s mother, she was determined to opened up her sons’ future doors, just like I was and still doing it in 2013 for my child. If anything, the democratic futures of both United States and Canada are at great risk if we as a society do not change their ways.
Doug in his last post, was fudging the truth about Sweden. SQE had a blog post a few days ago. http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/blog/read/sweden-is-not-in-kansas-anymore
Misleading Doug’s post is, and just as misleading when the educationalists uses the 19th century knowledge matrix, provides global education stats to declared there is no literacy crisis. There is a literacy crisis in today’s schools, but the adults in the education system all have their heads in the sand, singing out the same tunes based on the 19th century knowledge matrix based on beliefs and ideologies. Where is the science? Out in the outhouse to be cherry-picked and purified before it enters the hollow doors of the public education system. Can’t have folks thinking that literacy and numeracy can be fixed within 5 years……….gotta keep them thinking reading, writing, numeracy problems and the societal SES variables are what keeps 40 to 60 percent of students in a lifetime of low academic achievement.
Could you be more exact in the Sweden comment. Malkin is touting the very good Swedish system because it is 10% voucher 90% public. It was an excellent system before vouchers. I simply pointed out the Finland and Canada achieve higher results than Sweden and have no voucher system so Malkin is clearly in the corelation without causation area. Could it possibly be the very low level of poverty once again that accounts for the good Swedish system.
Of course progressives care about reading, writing, and numeracy rates. They just understand that the elimination of poverty is the best and most permenant way to eliminate all education problems.
Lest one forgets Doug – the little business of the Common European Union had a much bigger impact on Sweden than vouchers. Tossed in globalization and the dismal literacy rates in Europe – the low literacy rates are on the increased of the kind that makes young adults entering post-secondary, their lives very difficult to write coherent essays, pass their math classes without the intensive use of a tutor, and somehow come up with the money for shelter and food, which is not covered by most European post-secondary institutes. Alas, they too, the European students and their parents are not happy campers either.
Back to reading – below are articles related to reading.
“Understanding Neurodiversity to Build a Strengths-Based Classroom”
http://www.edweek.org/tm/section/chat/2013/02/08/index.html#info
Neurodiversity another subject area that teachers faculties do not teach. It would immensely help in the instruction of literacy and numeracy for students who are struggling in learning to read, write and do numeracy. ”
“Well, you’ve got to realize that neurodiversity as a concept is only about 15 years old and thus far has been primarily focused within the autistic rights movement. What I’m trying to do is bring it into all disability categories that have a neurological basis, and encourage educators to begin DOING researchg that focuses on the strengths of kids with special needs. In my Commentary in Education Week that appeared on Wednesday, I was critical of the special education community for not doing more to research the strengths, talents, and abilities of kidsj with special needs.”
It was my youngest child’s strengths that masked her reading and writing difficulties, to where she no longer met the criteria for reading support.
” Special Ed. Director Blazes Paths in Virginia”
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/06/20ltlf-sorrell.h32.html
Special Education teachers – in NA, to qualified, one does not a knowledge base on cognitive, neuroscience and reading instruction methods. Let alone have deep knowledge on the most common disabling problem – reading disabilities.
Two fold problem of retention and social promotion.
“‘‘Passing children up the grade ladder when we know they can’t read is irresponsible — and cruel,’’ said Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas in announcing in his recent State of the State address that third-graders should demonstrate an ability to read before being promoted. He also proposed a $12 million program for improving third-graders’ reading skills.”
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/02/06/more-states-push-retention-struggling-readers/fFSWibh1H5AtXkBwT77aVK/story.html
Whole language reading instruction and its many versions are so deeply entrenched in the public education system. Whole language instruction makes learning to read so very difficult because it is based on ideologies, and NOT the science.
The tutors – “Boys might never grow up, but they need to learn to read”
“This “rocket-booster” is the effect literature and reading have on brain stimulation. An article from http://www.Telegraph.co.uk titled “Shakespeare and Wordsworth Boost the Brain, New Research Reveals,” describes how “reading the words of the Bard and other classical writers has a beneficial effect on the mind, catches the reader’s attention, and triggers moments of self-reflection.”
Liverpool University researchers “translated” texts from great writers “into more ‘straightforward,’ modern language” and monitored readers’ brain activities while reading both versions.
“The more challenging prose and poetry set off far more electrical activity” especially when “readers encountered unusual words, surprising phases, or difficult sentence structure.
“This ‘lighting up’ of the mind lasts longer than the initial electrical spark, shifting the brain to a higher gear, encouraging further reading,” and “reading poetry, in particular, increases activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, an area concerned with ‘autobiographical memory,’ helping the reader to reflect on and reappraise their own experiences.”
http://www.newsminer.com/features/our_town/at_the_library_column/article_1cb32930-6eac-11e2-bdb4-001a4bcf6878.html
The classics certainly have been tossed from the progressive public school, as well as the classic poetry. I am glad to see, that progress is being made in science of reading – However, it appears to be absent in the progressive public school.
A little further away from reading, but it represents an important part, and that is parental involvement. But the darling of teachers’ unions, no grades, and other progressive novelties such as no homework is questioning parental involvement. Frankly, I would not leave my pet ferret or my cats in his care but he does represent the attitude of what I would call deep naval gazing in education..
“Consider the question of parent involvement in schooling. Almost everything published on this subject leaves the ideological foundations of the discussion unexamined. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/06/is-parent-involvement-in-school-really-useful/
Parental involvement should not be based on the ideological premise but it is. And there is a mountain stack of research based on ideologies and dogma inside the public education system.What is lacking, parents are not given explanations as to why they should read to their children. Why they should used expressive language to their young children? A parent has to go outside of the public education system, to obtained the reasons and explanations based on the science.
Doug’s last remarks – “Of course progressives care about reading, writing, and numeracy rates. They just understand that the elimination of poverty is the best and most permenant way to eliminate all education problems.”
One has to laughed at this one – Eliminate the poverty, than what will the public education system do with 66 % of the primary students who struggled to learned to proficiently read, write and do numeracy? According to the stacked of two mountains full based on the science – approximately 2/3 of any primary class will struggled under whole language instruction, in some aspect or all aspects. Or does Doug think when poverty is not a problem, students will be able to afford the private tutors to addressed the reading problems that a public education system refuses to addressed, much less remediate the reading problems to proficiency? Just as it is done presently in the public education system, where the higher income parents, of professional status are sending their youngsters to the private tutors, instead of sitting on the waiting lists at schools, or being told outright, their kids don’t qualified for reading support.
Reading instruction and the supports that surround reading acquisition should not be based on ideologies. Nor should reading support be based on political considerations that morphs into selecting students based on the SES variables. Leaving well over 80 % of students at risked depending on the actions/policies of the public education system and parents who may or may not have the knowledge base to navigate the public education system in the best interests of their children’s education.
Everybody always thinks the other side is being ideilogical but not our side.lol.
Why are Walmart, Microsoft, Dell, Wall Street, Heritage, Cato, Fraser Institute, AIMS, Frobtier, and a slew of others up to their next in education,reform?
Finland has the best system and the lowest child poverty. Everywhere you look testing results fit SES like.
A hand in a glove.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
The evidence that education results are SES driven not methodology driven is looking everyone in the face. Even prominent reformers noe realize that denial of the SES connection hust makes the entire reform movement look foolish and uninformed.
You don’t get it Doug, and probably never will until the day one of your grandchildren needs reading support – and straight to the private tutor. Who do you think go to the private tutors Doug? The people with the money, and one just has to look at the educrats in the ivory towers of education. The science is in Doug – There is just as many early reading students struggling in reading in each income group based on the cognitive processes and their development. Add in the SES factors that impacts the cognitive processes in early childhood, it will increased the number of students as you go down the income ladder.
What is missing? The public education system who rests their foundation in the 19th century rift with ideologies and dogma minus the science. The lack of applying the 21st century of science in learning, cognitive and neuroscience is obviously missing in the beginning of schooling. The public education model as it stands today, is a 19th century outdated model that still sees students as damage goods. Picking out the quality and the rest are assigned with the various labels and designations, going through further processing to select the students needing extra support based on caps and severity of the learning struggles. Thus, close to 80 % of the students are trapped in a classroom of 25 students or so, having an education being delivered to them of the one-sized-fits-all model that is no different from the late 19th century when teachers truly did not know that some students’ brains operate differently. No such things as scans, or talk of autism. Or the biological impact of what students eat…….And the latter rather important considering that the number of chemicals and pesticides are children are being exposed to in 2013.
The third, is the legal parameters why the public education formed in the first place. Canada is no different than the United States than in European countries, and to which the public education system is legally required to provide and delivered education services. This was true in the 19th century, and remains so in 2013. What the public education system does not have to do is delivery a quality education for one and all. In the last 30 years or so, education quality has decreased, as the number of private tutors have increased as the number of students have increased needing a variety of education services that the public education no longer provides or it has been denied to them because they did not meet the criteria.
The public education is unsustainable as it is, reaching $12,000 per student in Canada, while the low literacy levels continues to climb in slow upward level to the 50 % mark. As for low numeracy levels, it has surpassed the 50 % mark. The economy of today, can no longer afford to carry almost half of the labour force having low literacy and numeracy rates. Neither can the public education system can afford to carry students from one grade to the next have lower literacy and numeracy skills. Nor can the public education system, continued to produced after 12 years of schooling, where 40 to 60 % of students are not prepared for post-secondary or the work force. The time will be coming, where ideological beliefs will be no more as the basis for the education of our youth. Magical thinking has to be dropped, because it is causing undue harm not only to the children’s futures but to society and in the end the economy and democracy. And all the many assumptions that the employees of the public education system makes to decide on children’s futures. Such assumptions, low self-esteem is the cause of the reading difficulties, or the parent did not read to their children when they were young or the general labeling of a child, declaring developmentally slow without documentation or assessment.
My child needed 120 hours or so of intensive reading remediation of the Orton-Gillingham method. What she did not need, was to struggled through grade 1 science, social studies and other areas where reading and writing was the gateway to understand what the teacher was saying. In reality, she was well advanced in her knowledge in science, social studies and other areas but she could not expressed her knowledge because of the reading and writing difficulties that got in the way. Sitting in the classroom, became a grand babysitting service, while my child learned and received the message daily that she was not good enough for school. It still impacts her today, and more so on the days when her followed classmates are telling her in so many different subtle ways, she is not good enough. Of course she was not alone, she is in good company with approximately 60 percent of the student population at her local high school.
I hope this isn`t obnoxious- grade 1 end of January in a school where at least 70 percent of the class is Portuguese..the biggest problem we saw was weak phonemic awareness,in only 3 months the difference was staggering.
The administration DID NOT want to know about it!
It is truly baffling,even proof won`t convince them!They prefer to be right,similarly to Doug and Nancy duking it out about the research and even a high level published researcher-you can`t convince them.
If Dr.Stanovich couldn`t do it,what are our chances?
You just dont get it Nancy. Weak reading results are NOT evenly distrributed by SES but are overwhelmingly concentrated in poor schools as EQAO, NAEP, NCLB, PISA, and all the rest show.
We all know that you dont WANT it to be true because it does not fit your experience or your proposed solutuons. This, however does not stop it from it from being true.
It is time you look at the facts straight in the eye.
The ironic thing is that reformers demand testing but testing proves that progressive analysis is correct.
That is because the high level published research on the other side of the argument says SES is the primary cause of weak reults. You can start with David Berliner. There is an endless supply of published research that says that i am correct.
Published research is not non-partisan.Every time Dr Ravitch or Dr Darling Hammond or any numbrr of progressive academics speaks the reform crowd yells “ivory tower”.
Non-partisan eh? The vast majority hailing from the public education ivory towers. Most of it not peer research. Thousands upon thousands of research on the science of reading has been replicated over the past 60 years stating the 5 components must be there.
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/18846/
To eventually include 4 more elements – http://www.readingrockets.org/article/50/
What is missing? Phonemic awareness, explicit and systematic Instruction, decoding word instruction, vocabulary acquisition to start kicked comprehension, hand writing instruction to start kicked fluency in written work, spelling instruction, continuous assessments of students to informed educators on mastery in development of reading skills.
In the second link, like thousands upon thousands of research articles in the science – ” A clear message from longitudinal studies of reading development is that most children who become poor readers in third grade and beyond were having difficulty right from the start with phonologically-based reading skills.
In addition, instruction that targets the specific weaknesses most likely to cause reading difficulty often prevents later reading failure and facilitates the reading development of most children.”
By high school – in 2013 – the vast majority of the 60 % of students in high school have difficulties in phonologically-based reading skills. Yes, the students can read, but they are NOT good readers – THEY are slower readers, with less fluency and proficiency. Secondary problems at the high school level, poorer vocabulary levels coupled with poorer spelling skills.
In another set of research in the science of reading, are the research papers on motivation. Difficult to motivate students who have not reach proficient levels in reading, writing and numeracy. If the public education establishment insists that SES variables are the caused of low literacy and numeracy levels, then informed the public, the parents and government. As declared in the Supreme Court of Canada, that 50 % of students will not reached average reading levels, informed the public, the parents and the government.
I am sure if the public education establishment informed the public, the parents and the government – they will become motivated to come together without the public education system, to arrived at solutions that enables all if not the majority of students to become proficient in reading, writing and numeracy. If the public education establishment are insisting that failure of students lies elsewhere, other than their hollowed halls and ivory towers based on ideology and deep seated education philosophies – its time for the reading science that states close to 98 % of children can become proficient in literacy and numeracy.
#1 Canada has the worlds best English language readers and the worlds highest % of post secondary graduates.
#2 Far right PC Ontario leader says Ontario has a problem in 300 schools. Guess what, they are all poor schools.
#3 The results of any standardized testing in any province, state, or nation anywhere on Earth, is overwhelmingly a ranking of SES. It could be EQAO, .NCLB, NAEP, the League tables in UK, PISA, they are ALL overwhelmingly SES based. The failure to address the 400 pound gorilla in the room seriously undermines the reform agenda.
Poor ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance, Stanford researcher finds
A comprehensive analysis of international tests by Stanford and the Economic Policy Institute shows that U.S. schools aren’t being outpaced by international competition.
Socioeconomic inequality among U.S. students skews international comparisons of test scores, finds a new report released today by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute. When differences in countries’ social class compositions are adequately taken into account, the performance of U.S. students in relation to students in other countries improves markedly.
What the study above means is the USA does so badly on international tests because it has so many poor kids,
Reading Is Political. Reading Wars Are Political.
Others can add to my list, but I’ll just mention a few cases where reading is political.
1. American slaves were not allowed to learn to read for obvious reasons of keeping them enslaved.
2. Some Muslim populations forbid females to read and be educated in order to keep women obedient and subservient.
In Canada the school wars started with Hilda Neatby’s book, So Little For The Mind, 1953. It was “a scathing analysis of the Dewey-dominated pap provided by the provincial educational systems” as one reviewer, David Farmer, said.
The system’s response to critics, says Neatby, was the adoption of “an elaborate and highly-organized system of apologetics and counter-propaganda. The whole of January, 1952, issue of ‘Progressive Education’ . . . is devoted to the topic ‘meeting the Attacks on Education.’” (pg288)
Rather than deal with critics and their criticisms, Neatby saw a closing-in in defense of the status quo and a growth in Public Relations Experts.
In the US this was the time that Rudolph Flesch’s book, Why Johnny Can’t Read set off a firestorm. The attacks on Whole Word “Dick and Jane” reading methods grew, and phonics was still disparaged by “educators”. 25 years later, Flesch wrote “Why Johnny STILL Can’t Read”.
One of the strongest critics of “modern” reading methods is Bruce Deitrick Price:
“So Whole Word is not just vicious, it’s selectively vicious, harming disproportionately the defenseless, the non-academic, the poor, the minorities.
Here is the final absurdity: educators pretentiously calling themselves progressive embraced a pedagogy that treads most heavily on the downtrodden.
What’s going on? More and more, I have come to think they are not inept at all; they are deliberate and methodical.”
For Price’s plotting of the political games being played in the Reading Wars see “The War Against Reading” http://www.improve-education.org/id46.html
And yet people today read much better than they ever did in the “golden days” of phonics. Canada has the world’s best English readers.
Adult Literacy although high, is always higher the farther back in history you go. Every decade backwards yields a higher adult illiteracy rate.
We have never ever done better with literacy than we are doing today.
Of course literacy is political. Conservative forces have always held back lower classes and women from reading. When modern progressive forces seize power the first thing they do is run literacy campaigns.
Even today we witness Mr Hudak actually saying “fewer kids should go to university”. We know he does not mean the wealthy children. He means poor kids, blue collar kids, racial minority kids, quit trying for university. You are giving rich kids too much competition and stressing us out.
I am reading this thread a full 2 years late. In 1989, the Ontario Min of Ed removed the phonics reading series “Language Patterns” from their approved list. The following year they removed the last sight word series. There are only WLanguage readers left to this day – bits and pieces of the other methods but no proper reading series. Ministries of Ed need to ensure all methods are on their approved lists. then Doug, who has learned little or has had little success as a teacher, the Phonics series will win hands down. I successfully taught all my students to read, with the exception of severe behaviour problems. I’ve taught illiterate adults to read as well, and their dyslexia is always heavy duty.All this with engaging and interesting sequential phonics readers.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for this important piece on developments in Canada. I’ve linked to your post via the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction here:
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=502&p=728#p728
You may be interested to know that Dr. Linda Siegel is a founding member of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction – so she’s still challenging the status quo of whole language and non-evidence-informed practices!
Reblogged this on and commented:
What is happening with reading instruction in Canada?